mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Iran's Strategy
Concede Little, Keep Talking, Build Up Your Military
Features Icon
show comments
  • Craig Austin

    The continuing adventures of ” The Commander in Chief” as playrd by a community organizer.

  • Arkeygeezer

    “no Iranian bomb, and no war with Iran” I’ll settle for that.

    • Josephbleau

      Pick one and you will get the other.

      • Arkeygeezer

        Then I hope Iran chooses the bomb. They could have had one long ago if they really wanted it. North Korea, China, Pakistan, India, and Israel all have bombs and we have not had a nuclear war yet. I don’t think an Iranian Atomic bomb is a cause for war.

        • Josephbleau

          Fair enough, tough choices. I would like to think that Iran is rational but they do aid and abet shooting rockets randomly at Jews, guess they calculate that killing a smallish number gives them enough kicks without waking the beast. I just wonder what our contingency response would be if Tel Aviv were smoked. Can’t see us pushing the button on Tehran in cold blood the next morning, we would probably open a sidebar in Geneva to tell them they crossed the red line.

          • Arkeygeezer

            I think the Israeli contingency response would be more effective. They wouldn’t bother about getting U.
            S., U.N. or NATO permission before smoking Tehran.

  • Anthony

    Today a…regime seeks to mobilize ‘true Americans’ against some evil outside force and against a world that does not recognize the uniqueness, the superiority, the manifest destiny of America.” (

    • lhfry

      Lest anyone be misled, the full quote: Today a radical right-wing regime seeks to mobilize “true Americans” against some evil outside force and against a world that does not recognize the uniqueness, the superiority, the manifest destiny of America…. In effect, the most obvious danger of war today arises from the global ambitions of an uncontrollable and apparently irrational government in Washington….To give America the best chance of learning to return from megalomania to rational foreign policy is the most immediate and urgent task of international politics.

      • Anthony

        No misleading did not want to bias general thought.

  • Kevin

    “Certainly the last thing the U.S. now needs in this region is another major war.” This approach pretty much dooms you to get the second to the last item in your list of preferences.

  • FriendlyGoat

    The proper thing to do is turn the sanctions up to MAX in response to Iran’s stalling at the table and let the combination of those and the oil market force a deal.

  • Curious Mayhem

    It would be nice if we had leadership in Washington that could make creative use of the collapse in oil prices (which will continue for the rest of this decade and the next) to corner both Iran and Russia. The Saudis are trying their best, you know.

    But that’s expecting a bit much of the vacuous clowns we currently have in power.

    • FriendlyGoat

      Boehner and McConnell?

      • Tom

        Whose effect on foreign policy, like that of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid under Bush, is nada.

      • Corlyss

        Don’t be disingenuous, Friend. It doesn’t become you. You know full well that the foreign policy tone is not set by the Congress.

  • Corlyss

    “Weak oil prices would be a disaster for Iran without sanctions; with sanctions in place—and with a global oil glut reducing the need for other countries to get access to Iran’s oil by working around the sanctions—Iran’s government will have to make tough choices.”

    The remaining sanctions are marginal. I seem to recall that we hoped and hoped and hoped for change in the Soviet attitudes until Reagan decided to break them financially, i.e. he made them make tough choices. Too bad we have a moron in the WH who thinks speaking softly and carrying a wet noodle is the way to entice change.

    “Westerners hope that this will strengthen the hand of moderates trying to get sanctions relief by making nuclear concessions. That doesn’t seem to be happening.”

    Hope is not an investible strategy. Concessions aren’t happening because 1) there are no moderates in Teheran – only hardliners doing head-fakes, like Felix Dzerzhinsky when he set up The Trust, and 2) the sanctions are penny ante stuff.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    This has been the Iranian strategy for over a decade, and both Bush and Obama have fallen for it. Just keep baiting the stupid westerners with the hope of a diplomatic resolution to Iran’s development of a nuclear bomb, until Iran has the bomb and it’s a fait accompli.

  • TheRadicalModerate

    This nonsense is going to go on as long as it’s a strategic advantage for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. In addition to providing a deterrent against anybody who challenges their bad behavior, it’s even worse because Iran will happily give nukes to proxies for unattributable terrorist attacks. So I have a two-part modest proposal.

    1) Create a formal US designation of “rogue nuclear state”. Designate Iran and North Korea as rogues at the outset, and politely inquire of Pakistan why it should not be so designated.

    2) Paraphrasing a bit from Kennedy’s Cuban Missile Crisis speech, we adopt the following: “It shall be the policy of the United States to regard any unattributable use of nuclear weapons against any nation as an attack, by the set of rogue nuclear states, on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response.”

    Put ’em at the mercy of the craziest person in their little club and see if that doesn’t change their risk-benefit calculus.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service