Threading the Needle
Published on: October 25, 2013
show comments
  • BobSykes

    Expect a joint Israeli/Saudi attack on Iran soon.

    • S.C. Schwarz

      I don’t think so Bob. Rather, I expect the Saudis to make their own deal with Iran. The elements of the deal will be: (1) Iran goes nuclear, (2) Saudi Arabia agrees to back Iran in OPEC, (3) Iran agrees to leave Saudi Arabia alone militarily, (4) Iran uses nuclear/oil price blackmail against Europe to break the sanctions.

      The US will be a helpless spectator as this unfolds.

      • rpm73

        The details may not work out this way, but I do think you’re right in that the Saudis will buy their security before they’ll fight for it. That may mean cutting a deal with Iran. It may mean getting closer to Russia.

        Either way, the US will be a non-entity.

      • Pete

        Sounds plausible.

      • CiporaJuliannaKohn

        The Saudis will never acquiesce to a nuclear Iran.
        If they cannot stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, they will get their own.
        The Saudis will never accept to be under the domination of Iran.

      • justin bristow

        If things got that far it would mean the Saudi regime is breath takingly incompetent. Iran and Saudi are scorpions in a bottle, their foundation for existing is to promote two alternative interpretations of Islam. If they didn’t border on each other this wouldn’t be as big a deal. If they didn’t find fundamentalist appeals to a violent religion the basis of their power there could be a grand bargain. But here’s the problem for Obama: in the end Israel can be brought to heel. It relies on the US defense industry, it cannot survive without the US defense industry. We hold the cards. We can detect and we can punish any Israeli preparations to go rogue on Iran. Saudi Arabia is quite another story. Saudi Arabia is a wealthy and powerful regional player, the cards we hold do not dictate the survival of the Saudi regime. The Saudi’s will use their considerable influence to scuttle the Iranian deal in its final stages(all of the above levers you talked about can be threatened alone by Saudi without allying with Iran). The Iranians know this. Once the deal has been scuttled the Iranian leaders can turn to their public and say: look, all we wanted was the independence guaranteed to us by treaty to have nuclear reactors. And now we have a light water and heavy water reactor. But due to double standards and the hatefulness of Saudi Arabia, the great and little satan etc. Etc. We have no choice but to leverage nuclear weapons to get the sanctions removed. Iran withdraws from the NPT “temporarily” and makes a few nukes before we detect them. Break out is achieved, the US is embarrassed but now it’s time to contain Iran elsewhere in the region. The next chapter begins. Guess what the US has actually done this whole time? Delay the inevitable and deny reality. Sound familiar?

    • Andrew Allison

      When Hades freezes over. An agreement by the Saudis to do no more than express outrage is conceivable, a joint attack is not.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    The incompetent Obama and his leftist advisors have a nearly infinite capacity to delude themselves. The Iranians are going to continue their drive for nuclear weapons, using a successful strategy of false negotiations (its worked for 12 years so far) to gain time and block military strikes. They figure that once they have nuclear weapons they can hold hostage everyone within range of their missiles, and so project power over the entire region. The US and her allies will be out of options at that point, as any action risks the lives of millions of innocents. Iran can’t be attacked after that point, and a simple subterfuge like that of the North Koreans is all they need. They might already have nuclear weapons, and are just building a stockpile to add gravity to their coming nuclear threats.

  • Pete

    Why would the Persians give up their efforts to get a nuclear bomb? Obama surely has not given them any reason to pause.

  • lukelea

    Armchair amateur statesmen unite! That will be the day!

    For my own part I can’t see how Israel will ever accede to a nuclear Iran (I know I wouldn’t in their place) or the US either in the final analysis. It’s weird to have to be guessing the secret intentions of Iran’s “Supreme Leader” hiding somewhere in the sacred precincts of Qom. But then no weirder, I suppose, than trying to placate the Sunni fanatics behind the throne in Saudi Arabia. In any case I don’t see why we should not prefer Shias to Sunnis in Syria at least. There will be less killing in the long-run probably if Assad stays in power, and Israel knows they can live with him.

  • Ooga Booga

    Given the specifics of the Syrian “deal”, it’s hard to see why the Iranians wouldn’t just try and play us for suckers at this point.

  • Anthony

    WRM, a caveat: does Washington have both reduced capability and less willingness to engage fractious Middle East in spite of traditional alliances? In other words, a grand historical drama moving towards denouement with sobering foreign policy consequences for Obama administration must have context (as much as hope and fear).

    As a counterbalance, let us “start at the global level. For all the brave talk about continuing American potential, it’s pretty obvious that Washington has vastly reduced capability – and not only willingness – to engage deeply in the problems of the Middle East. The refusal to intervene in Syria is not simply a matter of President Obama’s gum-chewing indifference. It is rooted in a deeply and widely held, bipartisan public opposition to any new military adventures in the region, grim opposition from an exhausted and wary Pentagon, the growing internalization of Iraq’s painful lessons, and disillusionment with the failures of the Arab uprisings and the Libya intervention. Invocation of the need for bolder leadership by the administration’s critics ring hollow in the absence of any serious alternative policies to back up the louder words. A United States that can’t keep its own government open is going to retrench in the Middle East because it has little choice to do otherwise.” (Marc Lynch – Middle East Power Vacuum)

    Perhaps, subtext to Threading the Needle could be the problem of alliance management will continue to be difficult in Middle East where power diffusion and pathologies therewith make diplomacy with Iran attractive. This is geopolitical backdrop for U.S foreign policy going forward in region (with or without status quo of old relationships).

  • wigwag

    Obama’s foreign policy is a true disaster; his courtship of Iran will lead to nothing but disappointment and grief and in the process he will alienate the only Middle Eastern allies that the United States has. Maybe that’s the point; Obama has wanted to wash his hands of the region for a long time; a fact he has never been shy about advertising.

    An intelligent opposition political party should have an easy time explaining how disasterous Obama’s policies have been in the Middle East and elsewhere. Unfortunately, the GOP is anything but intelligent. Like lemmings rushing to the cliff’s precipice, instead of rationally explaining why Obama has it all wrong, Republicans have been working overtime to demonstrate to the American people that they are even more craven and clueless than Obama is. Then, as if to put an exclamation point on their lunacy, they are doing everything they can to alienate each and every one of the constituency groups they will need to attract in order to win the next presidential election.

    Obama’s foreign policy is a disaster, and the silence of his Democratic colleagues (some of whom surely know better) is deafening. If only we had an opposition party that could explain all of tugs to the American people.

    Instead, the Republicans respond to every stupid move that Obama makes by putting a gun to their own head and threatening to shoot if they don’t get their way.

    Obama and his GOP colleagues have way too much in common. The policies they support may be different but they are exactly alike when it comes to providing the American people with capable leadership.

    • Anthony

      WigWag, capable leadership (politically) how do we truly address it exclusive of partisan inclinations.

      • wigwag

        Anthony, there was a time not that long ago that we had a centrist and bipartisan foreign policy. The Democrats may have been marginally more supportive of treaties and international institutions and the Republicans may have supported somewhat more muscular measures, but the foreign policy debate between the two parties was pretty much played between the forty yard lines.

        Of course, the Cold War made a bipartisan foreign policy not only easier, but more critical. Things are obviously more complicated now.

        On the Republican side of the equation, the Party is in disarray. The GOP’s neoconservatives thoroughly defeated the Party’s realist branch about a decade ago and had been ascendant but now the long dormant isolationist wing of the GOP is making a strong comeback.

        It’s hard for the GOP to offer a credible alternative to the idiocy of Obama while it is engaged in an internecine struggle of enormous proportions.

        On the Democratic side of the equation I once thought that the adults in the room were people like Carl Levin and Hillary Clinton; unfortunately they’ve gone AWOL. Levin is retiring and Clinton is intent on protecting her left flank so that her presidential aspirations aren’t derailed in 2016 as they were in 2008.

        Superimpose on all of this, the fact that the American people are in no mood at the moment to become entangled in foreign conflicts and we have a real problem on our hands.

        With the economy and employment still far from robust and with failure after failure in the international arena committed by both the sitting president and the last president, perhaps this is not surprising, but it is still dangerous.

        Those of is who believe in American greatness and American exceptionalism have a lot of very good reasons to worry.

        • Anthony

          The greatness and exceptionalism you ascribe were once part and parcel of our civic virtue; now, not as much and an indirect catalyst of inferred worries.

          Yet at this moment (transformational or critical juncture) in our history, leadership (political) of the type that transcends parochial/provincial interests appears noticeably absent.

          A national leadership (not local, regional, sectional, etc.) that engages on the basis of shared national motives, values, and goals WigWag is sorely needed. Ultimately, the Cold War dividend has brought transactional leadership to a more prominent place in our political arena – very few real competing alternatives.

  • jonathan

    Perhaps I’ve been missing something but when has Iran ever been willing to negotiate their nuclear option? That’s never been on the table and in fact, the rhetoric has been quite clear about what they believe they have a right to do. The only possible option and sanctions are not hurting enough obviously, is for Iran to promote a nuclear free zone which of course Israel could abide by and Iran would cheat as did North Korea.

    The best outcome we could hope for is for the Supreme Leader to leave the stage and a truly moderate, perhaps even democratic government could be elected.

    In the absence of this, Israel and it’s new-found enemies of my enemy have no option other than to take action. And the sooner the dead end talks can end, the sooner Israel and it’s partners can act. It doesn’t have to be long range bombing. Perhaps there’s a Stuxnet 2 approach that can result in crippling facilities.

  • Matt B

    What strikes me about this analysis is that I don’t see any outcome where the interests, power or prestige of the United States is enhanced. No “Grand Bargain” with Iran is worth selling out our allies.

    • CiporaJuliannaKohn

      Obama’s “Grand Bargain” is a fake deal.
      Iran will retain its nuclear weapons capabilities, while also retaining the Shia crescent.
      The United States will be largely weakened and will lose long standing allies.
      It is obvious that Obama does not care about US national security interests.
      Obama’s biggest fear is that Israel will attack Iran, not that Iran will develop nuclear weapons.
      A nuclear Iran will be a catastrophe for the security of the entire Middle East and will put nuclear weapons in the hands of the premier terror state in the world.
      Obama does not seem to care as long as he has his fake deal with the Shia terror regime. Obama thinks that such a deal will earn him a significant place in history. He does not understand that only winners earn such place in history, and if Iran is allowed to retain its nuclear weapons capability, Obama will be remembered as a loser of monumental proportions.

  • Kavanna

    This argument assumes that “initiative” is what Obama has. What he really has is a weak hand, an empty head, and a gaggle of dunce advisers.

    And yes, regional cooperation amongst former American allies (Israel, Saudi Arabia) will accelerate, just as former allies Canada and Germany will start doing their thing.

    This is what happens when a void opens up.

  • circleglider

    One dour reality that American Iran-optimists need to keep in mind, though: whatever outcome the Supreme Leader seeks, he is not looking for a “win-win” deal with the United States. While stubborn facts may force him to concede on some points, he does not believe that our core interests are aligned. He wants his power to grow and ours to diminish, and that is the lens through which he will examine his choices.

    This reality completely negates the possibility that a “grand bargain” between the United States and Iran is possible.These sorts of essays are enormously frustrating. Professor Mead has just spent nearly 2,000 words forecasting that President Obama will permanently weaken America’s position in the world and burn our long-standing relationships with key allies because he lacks the intellectual balls to choose “between accepting an Iranian nuclear arsenal or launching a war.”

  • ljgude

    I think the notion that the Islamists like the AKP and the Morsi government represent anything like moderation in the Arab world is species of straw man designed to construct a false scenario of choice for the president. It is pretty clear WRM that you don’t think there is much of a chance for a grand bargain but it clouds the issue to treat either hope for the Arab spring that ended in Benghazi or make the change in tone of the new Iranian president an opening to any kind of bargain with Iran. I read you because I don’t want to read this kind of ungrounded faux theorizing in the NY Times. Rein in your inner Tom Friedman please sir!

  • Mark Thomason

    The US voting public will not fight another Middle East war for a long time. That was made clear when the war party pushed an attack on Syria.

    The choice is to negotiate, or accept nuclear weapons without benefit of any negotiations. There will be no war.

    True, Israel can attack, and then re-attack. Iran can dig more Fordow plants under more mountains. The end of that cycle will be a nuclear Iran determined not to be attacked by Israel any more. All Israel gets from that is an infuriated nuclear power already at war with it.

  • eboreen_hasmadop

    As a tour guide in Teheran that takes groups to our ancient persoplis and other historical sites, I can tell you americans that the fanatical mullahs still prevelant amongst the many that are hijacked, the same way americans that are decent have been hijacked by the Nazi Obama, no-one believs the fool Obama and his Persian master the primitive harlot jareet stands a chance against the monsters that rule teheeran.

  • davelnaf

    I beg to differ with the notion that a deal with Iran would give Obama a positive foreign
    policy legacy. Nothing he can do will ever
    pull off that miracle. But it will be amusing to see how the MSM Ministries of Truth try to spin any Iran ‘deal’ as a great accomplishment.

    Obama never intended to do anything about Iran; he’s just found what he thinks is a convenient way to get out from under any possible US involvement there. It’s also about getting the dupes here to believe that not everything with his name on it ends up an unmitigated disaster.

    The Iranians have Obama sized up—not that it’s all that hard to do.

  • Bob

    Alright, most of you guys have said some smart things in response to a smart essay. So, riddle me this:

    It is claimed the sanctions have driven Iran to (at least the appearance of) this willingness to deal. If so, doesn’t it make sense the right approach is to keep the sanctions on (and toughen them if possible)? Maybe the problem is Obama opened his big mouth short of victory, when he might have gotten a better deal from an even-weaker Iran.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to and affiliated sites.