It is not only Obama who is on the skids. His biggest constituency, the mainstream media, is also in trouble. Gallup reports:
Americans continue to express near-record-low confidence in newspapers and television news — with no more than 25% of Americans saying they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in either. These views have hardly budged since falling more than 10 percentage points from 2003-2007.
You see the problem: whatever cheerleading the media are doing for Obama (granted, it was less than a year ago) isn’t doing either of them much good. The public doesn’t trust what they see or hear. And Obama no doubt mistakes liberal pundits and softball-throwing reporters for representatives of the voters at large, a delusion a less-cocooned liberal might not embrace.
We see anecdotal evidence of this as well. The Washington Post devoted its news as well as op-ed pages to defeating Bob McDonnell in the Virginia gubernatorial race. He won by 20 points.
In sum, the mainstream media are more partisan than ever, less influential then ever, and less profitable than ever. Conservative candidates and elected officials should be concerned with media bias, but they shouldn’t obsess over it. The problem, along with the number of consumers of the liberal media, will diminish over time.
Since a blockade will not work, there is no point in regarding it as anything other than a block to check, if we see that as essential. A blockade would provoke Iran, without putting us in a strong position to deal with Iranian retaliation, while simultaneously robbing us of time, and yet not preventing Iran from continuing uranium enrichment and weaponization. The drawbacks with a blockade are such that its cost seems far higher to me than the supposed “legitimacy” it might gain for our policy.
This is the only thing that will actually work:
1. Threaten to bomb.
2. If Iran does not comply with our exact instructions, to our satisfaction, bomb.
This is depressing. I really hope Bush will surprise me and show the courage I believe he has and act, but I am not holding my breath.
J.E. Dyer,
Wouldn’t provoking Iran be the idea? We would want to force them into making a choice: abandon their nuclear ambitions, or continue to suffer a blockade and possibly (probably) more.
Why do you think a blockade would be useless?
I really want to get upset about this, but just can’t. “We” (the US gov’t) have obviously decided that we can in fact tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. Why this decision has been made I don’t know, but no one’s asked for my input. At this point more threats are counterproductive since no one believes we’re going to do anything. Better to go back to arguing about whether polar bears will be endangered in 50 years.
J.E. Dyer, I understand your logic and accept your points, but we need to check that box as a political matter. The fact that it would not work provides the justification for use of harsher methods.
I agree that, as a practical matter, the Iranian leadership will not stop working on the bomb until it is physically incapable of doing so.
Graham, the only thing I can say is that Bush is not doing anything because he is trying to avoid influencing the election. Having said that, he will do nothing after the election either. His administration is over as far as Iran is concerned. That also goes for North Korea and many other foreign policy matters.
Graham — I’ve commented on this a number of times before. Regarding provoking Iran, no, our objective is not to provoke Iran, it is to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If we do something that is going to provoke Iran, we had better be prepared to deal decisively with the consequences. Blockading Iran doesn’t put us in a position to do that. Iran will retaliate with terrorist attacks on the Persian Gulf nations we rely on for basing and logistic support, as well as for a stable “back door” to our maritime posture versus Iran. Tehran is well-placed to mess with those elements of the regional environment. But merely mounting a blockade would not put US in a position to counter a terrorism offensive by Iran in UAE, Oman, Bahrain, and Qatar.
With these drawbacks, a blockade would yet be useless for our purpose, which is getting Iran to stop her nuclear weapons program. Russia can’t break a blockade of Iran by the US Navy, but Russia can very easily continue to support Iran’s nuclear program in spite of it. Russia can also join with Iran to bribe Central Asians around the Caspian Sea, to not just allow, but to participate in keeping commerce going by this northern route. America has no hope of plugging this hole. All we would succeed in doing is inconveniencing Iranians, diverting commerce geographically, enriching a bunch of Central Asian criminals, and strengthening Russia’s hand in Iran. We can predict all this because, although the names were different, these were exactly the consequences of the UN sanctions on Iraq.
The way I could see using a blockade is as a waypoint in a US strategy of ramping up force in the Persian Gulf, to credibly threaten a catastrophic takedown of Iran’s entire military. Mounting a blockade is a good reason to build up naval and air force in the Gulf, and be prepared for either counterstrikes against retaliation, or a major air offensive in case Iran does not have a change of heart. Used in this sense, a blockade is a tool of a larger and better-conceived policy — and it should last only as long as it is useful to us, in buying us time to complete our preparations.
Iran should know that the blockade is only a courtesy to her, an opportunity to comply without being assaulted. If a blockade is all we can manage to bring ourselves to do, Iran won’t see it that way. Only as a clearly-delineated stepping stone in a policy that threatens credible, inescapable force, would the blockade “step” have a hope of being the step at which our objective was achieved.
Brian, there is an election coming so we all have some influence on what happens after President Bush leaves office.
Polar bears kill people only one or two at a time. The same cannot be said of the Iranians.
Gordon, I would like to kill many birds with one stone. We have the War on Terror to win which includes our challanges in Iran. We have a dicey economy. Let’s do what all empires do when they’re bankrupt,which is to combine our foreign policy need with our economic necessities. Let’s occupy Iran,save Israel,and use their oil to solve our Economic woes. We’ve already won in Iraq,let’s grab their oil also. If we do that, we save our own asses,save Israel,and we give the other WOT nations an incentive to behave.
Can it be that up to very recently, most powers thought the Iranian bomb was merely a threat to Israel, and, as such, could be back-burnered as not too serious an issue?
Can it be they did not consider the use Iran would make of the bomb to become the Gulf hegemon, with its hand on the world’s economic throttle?
Or did they perhaps believe there was more than enough time to deal with it, despite the inconsistent and incompetent El Baradei, and are now starting to realize that time runs short?
Or do they imagine Israel will deal with it, to their quiet satisfaction but vocal protest?
Paleo:
Riiiiiiiiiight……
The congress in any event will have no stomach for action at all. If Israel is unwilling to do some sort of strategic strike, since they stand to lose the most, then Iran will be nuclear and Israel will have to wonder what Hez decides to shoot their way. If I were them, I would be planning my raid now. Iran’s leadership, while complete whackjobs, are nonetheless deadly serious I believe when they threaten to wipe out Israel.
I wish my government had more serious people in it, but the democrats and the national media are completely children on this one – add to them the isolationists in the GOP and the US will do nothing. I pray this ends another way, but I really don’t think China and Russia can control what they are doing. I hope I am wrong, but we are a few years away from a nuclear attack on Israel. Once that occurs look for the Russians to get some too, as their southern Muslim flank is ripe to be hit.
Paleo, we do not need to seize assets or resources. Merely trading with Iran and Iraq on a normal basis will enrich all of us.
Maine’s Michael, I suppose I would have to say “all of the above” except the second paragraph. I think many shared the beliefs in your last two paragraphs.
JEM, you raise the issue of blowback for China and Russia. Russia and Iran are as thick as thieves, but the Iranians will not have complete control of their fissile material once it leaves their hands. So perhaps the Russians will pay a dear price for its absolutely irresponsible support for Tehran, not because the Iranians will target them but because freelancers will.
Gordon, it’s time for some pragmatic,”us first” thinking,it’s called survival. Trade(on a normal Basis) is one of the factors that has put our economy in the “red” zone.
J.E. Dyer,
Your point is well argued, but I still don’t think a blockade is useless. We would obviously have to take precautionary measures to prevent Iran from retaliating in the ways you described. It of course wouldn’t be possible to prevent all acts of Iranian terrorism as a response, but we could certainly act to limit such occurrences. Iran’s economy is vulnerable and stopping all imports and exports would do damage.
I agree with Gordon that a blockade is also valuable in that it provides further legitimacy to the almost-certain military conflict that would have to follow. No one could say we didn’t try every conceivable non-violent tactic to stop Iran’s enrichment.
My instinct at a time like this, were I in charge, would be to outline a far firmer position on these issues. Such Bushian (of the 2001 and 2002 ilk anyway) certainty would likely be unpopular, but we are getting to a point where it is necessary. It is time for the proverbial line in the sand. The United States (and hopefully some allies; UK, France, Germany, Australia, etc.) need to make it completely clear to Iran that we have reached our breaking point. That this blockade is their last chance to acquiesce to the demands of civilization. We should say the same things to China and Russia: if you interfere here, you can forget about any sort of productive relations with the West. Then, hopefully, Iran would give in. We’d send the inspectors back in, and assist them in dismantling their nuclear program. More likely, they’d continue to bet on our indulgence and weakness and it would be time for war.
Such a scenario, I admit, is highly unlikely. I can’t imagine the West uniting behind us on a task like this–call me jaded, but I’ve lost what little faith I had in them long ago–, and even worse, it is unlikely Bush, McCain or Obama would take measures anywhere near what is necessary to stop Iran once and for all.
I am distressed to predict, we are probably on our way to a world with a nuclear Iran.
J.E. Dyer’s plan will work if disarm Iran’s WMD is the only priority on Bush government’s agenda and it better exist in vacuum. Congress is just about to add one trillion dollars debt overnight to stabilize the financial system and the fallout of financial meltdown has not been fully appreciated. I doubt Bush will do anything in this juncture; the more important question is how the next administration plan to deal with a nuclear Iran.
Gordon,
Perhaps Shimon Peres’ recent statements as well as his planned UN address, that he (Israel) does not favor a military strike is meant to tell the world that Israel will not do its dirty work.
Or, perhaps, it is one piece of the psychological warfare directed at Iran.
Can you think of a better time for Israel to strike that when Ahmadinejad is in NY, at the moment Peres is saying he does not favor a strike?
It would be pretty pathetic if the Western Powers would hope for Israeli success vs. Iran but do nothing substantial to facilitate that success.
Israel can take care of itself. With two wars and one financial meltdown, we have enough our plate. Note to John McCain: This is why you don’t start unneccessary wars. You reduce your ability to fight more important ones. The Bush administration has tied our hands. Hey, but the surge is working!
David,
To pretend that a nuclear Iran only threatens the security of Israel is the height of silliness.
Graham — the policy you outline is what I was referring to, as a larger and more credible policy than simply mounting a blockade. I think we are in agreement here: if used as a last-ditch means of giving Iran a chance to avoid a worse fate, a blockade could be a useful waypoint in such a larger policy. In my concept, the time and pretext a blockade would give us, for a force build-up, are equally important. We do not have anything like such a graduated but relentless timeline implied in our diplomatic approach now.
There is great danger, however, in thinking that a blockade is an alternative to being prepared to take more decisive action. In that context, it would not only fail to achieve our objective, it would make things worse. This is why I keep sticking at Gordon’s formulation, that if we are not prepared to blockade Iran, then the only alternatives are using force and acquiescing in Iran’s nuclearization. I would say, rather, that if we are not prepared to use force, period, then we have, de facto, acquiesced. A blockade — like any other measure — would only work if Iran were convinced of our will to use even greater force.
Paleo, thanks for your reply. It’s not so much free trade that is hurting us, it is that the Bush administration is failing to enforce the trade agreements we have made. Nations get access to our markets, and we have little access to theirs. China is a good illustration of this.
One question for you guys- and I do appreciate the careful weighing of just how troublesome each of our more assertive options against Iran are. How does the U.S. navigate, let’s say, a mixed plan, a blockade followed quickly, if it fails, by air strikes- with our allies? Brown is not Blair, and Sarkozy seems inclined toward diplomacy at almost any cost. And how do we clear the hurdle of the U.N. , which our allies will be inclined to insist on appealing to.
Of course, all of the very astute readings of our options assume having a president in office with a clear understanding that Iran will accept nothing less than being a nuclear power, unless they come to fear for the existence of the regime itself. Bush, it appears, is a spent force. McCain, if he wins the election, will have to act awfully quick if even a sluggard like El Baredi is alarmed by Iran.
J.E. Dyer
Exactly so.
Graham, thanks for your thoughts. A world with a nuclear Iran will undoubtedly be unstable, and eventually some nation may resort to the use of nuclear weapons. Iran, in short, could be the exception to all we think we know about nuclear deterrence.
J.E. Dyer,
I now see that yes, we are in agreement.
Jliu, yes, it’s the next administration, not this one. This one is utterly exhausted. That’s why the world looks like it is falling apart at this moment.
Gordon,
I agree and that’s what makes the prospect of the free world’s likely acquiescence so depressing and so terrifying.
Can deterrence work against a country that has leaders who say things like (paraphrased) “I would gladly see Iran turned into a smoldering hole in the ground if it meant the furthering of the Islamic Revolution outside its borders?”
I really don’t want to find out.
Maine’s Michael, the best time for a strike is when Ahmadinejad is in Tehran and we can target him and the rest of the regime. As J. E. Dyer points out, we need to destroy Iran’s ability to retaliate.
Bob Miller, “pathetic” is one word we could use. I bet you can think of others.
Gordon:
Exactly. What basis do we have to assume that Iranian leadership is rational, in the western sense?
They no doubt have a rationality, but it is perhaps or even likely based on a Mahdist/Shiite cosmology.
It is idiotic to assume they are like us, when the cost of being wrong is so high.
One of the many smart things Kissinger once said was that one had to understand or appreciate the ‘foreigness of foreigners’.
Gordon Chang Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 4:50 PM
Paleo, thanks for your reply. It’s not so much free trade that is hurting us
Gordon ,here’s the real deal. We buy China’s stuff;they finance our deficits,that way we don’t have to pay taxes to finance all of our expenses. This deal has gone bad,it’s now time to acquire assets the old fashioned way,this is for our national economic survival. Think about 700 billion in bail out $. That’s peanuts. We(our financial institutions)have 70 Trillion$s worth of exposure due to failing derivative investments of various kinds. Their oil saves our a–.
Stuart Rose, you put your finger on an important point: the new President will have to decide what to do about Iran even before taking office.
Paleo, where do you get that 70 trillion amount from?
All the oil in Araby won’t cover 70 trillion dollars . . .
Graham, as you suggest, we cannot assume that nuclear deterrence will work against Iran. It might, but it might not. If it does not, it will be for the reason you highlight.
Therefore, we should not try to find out. The solution is to disarm Iran before it develops the bomb. That means acting quickly.
Maine’s Michael, thanks for the Kissinger quote. It is important to remember this.
Paleo, you might want to consider selling this idea to McCain, I mean his lipstick
Paleo, there surely must be other ways to financial solvency than grabbing others’ oil, don’t you think?
“To pretend that a nuclear Iran only threatens the security of Israel is the height of silliness”– Graham.
No doubt. Would’ve been a good thought before we destabilized the region by removing the countervailing power next door. Where was the actual intersection of Islamic radicalism and WMD and why did we strenghten that regime’s hand?
Bush won’t act, and given the state of the economy, neither will McCain, at least not in the first two years of his term. Of course, I’m guessing. More likely is that we allow Israel to strike, but even then, we’re looking at $200 a barrel oil and political suicide.
Maine’s Michael Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:05 PM
Paleo, where do you get that 70 trillion amount from?
All the oil in Araby won’t cover 70 trillion dollars . .
Everyone who follows the derivative fiasco knows the #s. Every bailout will only be a bandaid. Check it out. I’ve been following this market since Orange County went bust on derivatives in the 90s. We need real assets not more paper. If you want a case history, check out the situation with the Jefferson County Alabama sewer District bonds.
What she would have said…
Sarah Palin was supposed to have delivered a speech today before a rally at UN headquarters to protest the appearance of Iranian fascist fruitcake in chief and Gilligan look-alike President Ahmadinejad. Her appearance was canceled when Senator Clinton …
David,
How much good does re-hashing whether it was right to invade Iraq do?
I would posit that the answer is somewhere in the neighborhood between very little and none.
David,
I’m sure part of the Iraq calculation was that after the war, we would be sitting, with large American bases in the Iraqi desert, right on Iran’s head. There is no doubt that is McCain’s perspective (hence the 100 years in Iraq meme).
But for that to be effective, Iran must not be a nuclear power.
We’ll have to wait and see what Bush or Israel do. This clearly won;t wait for McCain to take office and get his team in place. . .
Paleo, can you point me to a credible link on the subject as regards the wider market?
Maine’s Michael Says:
September 22nd, 2008 at 5:39 PM
Paleo, can you point me to a credible link on the subject as regards the wider market?
Do your own research,but I’ll give you a hint. You can go to lunch with Warren Buffett for a fee of $1,200,000,ask him about Financial Weapons of Mass Destruction,he wasn’t kidding. By the way,he has lost not one penny on the derivatives market,ask him how that happened. The reality is that you need to be a lot more frightened of our little predicament than you are. Our economy is best described as Enron on Steroids.
Stuart Rose — the short answer to your question at #25 is: We don’t.
We don’t navigate our allies in implementing our dissuasion policy against Iran, that is. To do it effectively, we would have to undertake this one alone. None of our allies would agree to publicly join us in such an effort. It would be impossible under UN auspices too, in case that needed to be clarified.
That doesn’t mean anyone would materially oppose a US operation undertaken on a rapid timeline. Not even Russia would do so. If we achieved big objectives quickly — within, say, the space of 6-8 weeks — no opportunity would present itself, for those who wish us ill, to find vulerabilities and try to attack them from oblique angles. Only getting bogged down and/or thrown off a pace that keeps us inside Iran’s reaction loop would begin to make us vulnerable to various forms of sabotage. These might range from Iranian terror attacks in the Gulf, to Russian exploitation of our situation for her own gain in the Caucasus or Eastern Europe, to our helpful European allies offering to step in and arbitrate.
We would have to make this operation develop quickly. It would be Iran’s responsibility to keep up with us; we would not accept being delayed in any way by Iran. Delay would work to Iran’s advantage, in every possible permutation of this scenario, and could not be permitted.
Enemies like Iran — as with the former Soviet Union — are never as brave and determined as we think they are. Iran has gone as far as she has because we have not pushed back AT ALL. The one time we did appear ready to menace her nuclear program — in 2003, when we invaded Iraq — Iran sent her nuclear program underground, made conciliatory gestures to the UN and EU-3, and even briefly suspended the weaponization track of the program. It was our lack of follow-up that emboldened Iran to make the strides she has made as of 2008.
This last is to say that I think there’s a very good chance, if Iran is seriously threatened, that her leaders will decide to back off and comply to the letter, rather than face destruction. We would need to be ready for that outcome too. It wouldn’t be possible to be sanguine about it, and go on as if the hash were firmly settled. Iran, under the same leadership, would undoubtedly rechannel the effort she is putting now into nuclearization — most likely into more terrorism, and more of the quasi-Bolshevik approach of Hizballah to political power in Lebanon. Moqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army bear watching in that regard. Iran would be in waiting mode, and trying to do things (including develop weapons) on the sly, in this eventuality — as she will be until her political leadership undergoes a major change. But Iran would not have nuclear weapons.
J.E. Dyer, I am glad that you have mentioned that the Bush administration has not pushed back at all.
Analysts talk about the Bush legacy as being written in Iraq and Afghanistan. I think it will be more like Iran and North Korea. Just as Clinton largely failed to meet the challenge of al-Qaeda, Bush is letting the these two rogues run free.
We are “tolerating” a nuclear Iran because of the success enjoyed by the Dems who undermined the war on terror and destroyed the President’s ability to demonstate the “courage” we long for now. I suppose it’s possible that he will attack Iran on November 5th, but I no longer bet on it.
Had the nation spoken with one voice on terror and Iran we would have eliminated this threat. But just as Churchill had to face horrid accusations and cries of “war monger” in the 30s, Bush is sullied now.
The nation and our precious little talking heads will malign him until the Iranian bomb does its damage. Then they will be the first to ask: why wasn’t something done?
The stupidity is thunderous
Gordon,
I’m not sure Bush will be cursed with that legacy. If we are able to act before it’s too late (whether the acting is done by Bush, McCain or Obama) and stop Iran from getting the bomb, Bush’s failings (if he indeed fails) will likely be forgotten.
Bush’s legacy in all likelihood will rest on his heroic response to 9/11 and the routing of the Taliban. Iraq also since it was so controversial will echo for a long time to come, but it won’t necessarily be a stain. If we win in both theaters, Bush will be remembered favorably by history. I think the only way he’s saddled with Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons is if they acquire them during his presidency (i.e. before January) or very shortly thereafter making it clear that the new president had no chance to stop them. Otherwise, final blame will rest with McCain or Obama.
Cara N, Bush is ultimately responsible. He is not trying to change the national conversation on Iran or even speaking out. The problem is our President, not the Democrats.
Graham, I agree with your first paragraph.
Iran and North Korea could be so serious that they are what he is remembered for, especially because his diplomacy has been so atrocious. I think we will eventually prevail in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but that legacy may not be enough to counterbalance the judgment that he permitted greater dangers to gather elsewhere.
J.E. Dyer writes “If we achieved big objectives quickly — within, say, the space of 6-8 weeks — no opportunity would present itself, for those who wish us ill, to find vulnerabilities and try to attack them from oblique angles”
The question is under whose administration and when does this 6-8 weeks window resides? The likelihood of a US president to launch a unilateral attack against Iran probably rank in order like McCain>Bush>Obama. McCain needs a quick bail-out package from Congress to temporarily put the financial fiasco behind him who advocates deregulation throughout his life and bear some responsibility of the meltdown, but oppositions from both parties made a quick patch unlikely to come and will fatally cripple McCain’s electability. Will a fatigued Bush to strike Iran and try to finish an air campaign war in 10 weeks (11/05/08 until 01/20/09)? Unlike Bosnia, Iran can compound real damage to the world economy by using asymmetric tactics such as deploying naval mines in the Strait of Hormuz and that could trigger a nuclear winter of the Q4 economy. A nuclear Iran is a serious security concern but the economic security is clearly the dominant topic and won’t go away for quite some time, other issues will not get their fair attentions, good news for Iran and North Korea.
JLiu — A point of order: the operation I outline does not in any way discount Iran’s “asymmetric” capabilities. Rather, it promises an immediate and catastrophic response if they are employed.
If there is one capability of the US Navy and Air Force that we do not need to fear is inadequate, it is the ability to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to safe maritime passage. If we undertake to do this — and it is a necessary component of any operation involving escalation against Iran — we will succeed.
Only if we approached this operation in a tentative manner would there be opportunities for Iran to exploit vulnerabilities in our planning or preparation. And it is a valid judgment to say that Iran’s WILL to try retaliation would be inversely proportional to the rapidity and conprehensiveness of our operational approach.
J.E. Dyer, Today’s unipolar world order is essentially maintained by two pillars, strong US economy and strong US military power. With one pillar in intensive care the military pillar need to work well, any misstep will further deteriorate the economic confidence and make civilian leader more hesitate to commit force, and that is an exploitable vulnerability.