Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Will the EU Back Down on Iran?

For the past several months, it has been the European Union that has taken the lead on ratcheting up sanctions against Iran. While President Obama was still dithering about implementing measures that would effectively create an international embargo against Iranian oil, the EU laid out its plans to actually shut down Tehran’s one source of foreign capital. But lurking behind this admirable boldness has always been a troubling sense that underneath their tough talk was an ardent desire to engage the Iranians and make all the unpleasantness go away.

That concern must go back to the front burner today with the announcement that EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton has accepted an offer to meet with the Iranians to discuss some new proposals Tehran is putting on the table. While the talks don’t obligate the EU to back down on its threats and can be construed in one way as proof that sanctions have gotten the attention of the Islamist regime, there is also the very real chance that once the negotiations begin the dynamic of diplomacy will predominate and allow Iran to play for more time as their nuclear program progresses.

It should be understood that the only reason why the Europeans have been so forward on the Iran issue is they are scared stiff an Israeli attempt to forestall the nuclear threat will play havoc with their economies. That isn’t to say that leaders such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy are not fully aware of Iran’s dangerous nuclear intentions or that they fail to understand that Tehran’s acquisition of such a weapon would not present a threat to European security. They understand this, yet absent pressure from Israel, it is doubtful the EU would have been as tough on Iran as it has been.

During the past several years, dating back to the Bush administration (which outsourced diplomacy on Iran to the French and the Germans), the Iranians have had only one objective in its nuclear talks with the West: using them as a way to distract the world from its ongoing progress towards a weapon. Though it can be argued that some good and no harm can come from just talking to the Iranians, there is no reason to believe they view negotiations as anything but an opportunity to detach the EU from the U.S. and Israel. The ayatollahs know the EU has every reason to accept an inadequate compromise on nuclear enrichment or some other measure as proof Iran has backed down and will allow this to serve as justification for standing down from their promise of what might prove to be a costly oil embargo.

Given President Obama’s own predilection for pointless talks with Iran as well as his own lack of enthusiasm for an oil embargo, Israel has good reason to fear that once talks with Iran get going they will have a life of their own. Though the Israelis have no way of preventing such talks, the EU must be reminded that should they fold on their heretofore tough stance on Iranian nukes, the Jewish state will not back down on its own resolution to prevent the Islamist regime from acquiring a genocidal capability. Moreover, if President Obama is as serious about stopping Iran as he wanted to appear to be while speaking at the AIPAC conference, he must speak out and remind both Iran and the EU that he, too, won’t stand for any compromise that leaves Tehran with a potential opportunity to create their own nuke.

Introducing Commentary Complete

2 Responses to “Will the EU Back Down on Iran?”

  1. Scrumptlous says:

    Here's the way I see it: there is no reason why, if a military option is truly on the table, talks can't go ahead. Diplomacy has no necessary self fulfilling prophecy and doesn't entail the displacement of military means. So by all means let there be as much talking as possible within the framework of criteria establishing whatever pressure tightening is to be applied including finally the use of force. n nBut I take, for these boards, a contrarian view of an Israeli preemptive strike. Until I hear a better argument I'm against it. My reasoning is this: Iran must know that any strike by it will lead to wholesale Israeli nuclear retaliation effectively destroying Iran. If so, then I don't know why the logic of MAD won't guarantee a kind of cold war (or cold peace) between Israel and Iran.  n nCompare that unsatisfactory nuclear stalemate with the consequences of an Israeli preemptive attack including: reprisal that will bring down an unthinkable loss of life and civic life in Israel including from Iran directly, and its proxies including Hamas and Hezbollah; Israel will have given Iran the ground for its further calculated response at a time and place of its choosing; there is no way of knowing how effective and enduring such a preemptive strike will be–I have heard estimates of up to 18 months; we are not dealing with a one off attack against say a single Syrian installation or an Osirak; a preemptive attack could lead to a hot war, with Muslims being unified in the consequence, including conceivably Turkey and worse Egypt, that war being more than just a one time attack of reprisal; Israel stands to alienate a likely Obama led U.S., whose help and favour it needs to survive day to day, let alone in war; an attack will turn world opinion against Israel to the point of a possible functional paralysis of it insofar as world favour is important to it; it stands to divert attention away from repressive regimes terrorizing their dissident populations and from the nascent rising of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to focused condemnation of Israel. I'm certain further horribles can be listed. n nSo what conclusion do these comparative cost beneft reckonings yield? Some possible time bought by a preemptive strike against all these consequences, and others, compared to a wholly undesirable nuclear stalemate enforced by the logic of MAD: for myself I see the case for a preemptive strike by Israel being the weaker one. n nAnd even if Israel were bent on preemption, for however she defines her final and  unerasable red line, wouldn't she be better to wait past the U.S. election to see whether Romney wins, which if he did, would make, American support or even taking military lead more possible?

  2. But scrumptious, Hamas already announced –see Haarets– that they are not allies of Iran and will not take part in an Iranian war on Israel.

Leave a Reply