The Table

Ilan Goldenberg spends some time listening to some folks who have experience dealing with Iranian officials and with difficult negotiations, and it turns out that nobody thinks table-pounding threats to keep military force "on the table" are a useful negotiating tool. Weirdly, it turns out that these experts believe the Iranian government is capable of realizing that the U.S. could, in principle, drop bombs on Iran based on their ability to perceive objective reality. They also claim that leading with idle threats to launch wars makes you look unreasonable, and tends to poison the wells for productive talks.

Strange stuff -- sounds like appeasement talk to me.

Comments

How would you know? You can't even talk about it, let alone talk "appeasement" talk.

All you can do is babble inanities without ever making one substantial point.

Answer my two fucking questions or STFU about Iran.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 12, 2008 12:14 AM

So is this a criticism of Obama, who said he would "always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security"?

Or is Matt just confused? We know he doesn't know what the current US policy toward Iran is, but it is surprising that he doesn't know what Obama said last week about Iran. Matt, stick to posting the campaign talking points--when you stray like this you're no good.

Posted by Thomas | June 12, 2008 12:28 AM

Answer my two fucking questions or STFU about Iran.

Or else.....what exactly?

Posted by Seitz | June 12, 2008 12:34 AM

Richard, why don't YOU ask your two fucking questions, and let the rest of us comment?

You've got the lead position on the overnight thread. It'll be the first thing Matt looks at in the morning. If you drive up enough conversation, maybe he'll respond w/ a fresh post.

Posted by scythia | June 12, 2008 12:46 AM

The threat by some in Washington and Israel to bomb Iran is not idle. It may be foolish, but it is not idle.

Posted by otto | June 12, 2008 1:52 AM

Did anyone else see the blog post "The Table" and get excited, thinking it was the web video series? Alas, it was merely a metaphorical table of options.

Posted by Ryan | June 12, 2008 2:00 AM

I've asked these two questions fifty times here. Matt ignores them. He ignores them for a reason. Meanwhile, he babbles this crap about Iran.

He's not going to respond because he's a ball less wonder who's scared of being tagged as a "liberal hawk" on Iran like he was on Iraq. He was wrong then. He's wrong now. But he's "learned his lesson": never make an actual opinion you might have to recant later.

However, for the uninitiated, here, ONCE AGAIN, are my two "fucking questions":

Question 1:

Do you believe that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, i.e., not a nuclear energy program, but a program to develop and deploy actual nuclear weapons, a program sanctioned at the highest levels of the Iranian government?

Question 2:

IF it is PROVEN that IN FACT Iran does indeed HAVE such a program, do you believe that the use of military force by the United States to destroy such a program, whether or not under UN resolution authorization, whether or not diplomacy and sanctions are applied first, would be an effective and correct approach to dealing with the issue?

Feel free to elaborate in a more substantive post, but I'd like at least a "yes" or "no" answer to both questions before any elaboration.

"I don't know" is also an acceptable answer.

Bullshit is not.

For the record, my answers are "No" and "No" - actually "HELL NO!"

Now watch - Matt will utterly ignore them again.

Gutless.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 12, 2008 4:07 AM

When Bush says Obama will look at his options and continue the same policies, he's basically right.

Iran knows the US can bomb Iran, so these statements that bombing is "on the table" are unnecessary.

Iran also knows the US does not want to bomb Iran. US military policymakers for the past couple of years have applied the term "escalation dominance" to Iran's situation in the Gulf, and Iran not only knows this but knows its own plans and capabilities better than the US does. So these statements that bombing is "on the table" are not particularly threatening to the regime.

(The threats may be effective at further scaring away investment from Iran. The US' belief that threats hurt Iran's economy even if the cause Iran's leaders to laugh is why we've seen these threats for the past few years even though a direct attack has not been a practical option for a long time.)

The issue is not whether to talk, but whether to increase the offer for an enrichment freeze from almost nothing to something substantial. I talked about why the US does not improve its offer in another comment thread. The short version is that a substantial offer just for enrichment means that the purpose of sanctions in the first place, pressuring Iran over Hamas, Hezbollah and other anti-Israel groups, would be defeated.

If Obama does not have a different answer to the question of lifting sanctions while Iran still supports anti-Israel groups than Bush, then US policy will not and pretty much cannot change under Obama.

"Appeasement" "on the table" "preconditions" none of these "issues" are relevant to the basic situation with respect to Iran.

Oh, and my feel of the situation is that Iran would not want anything more than the US to actually bomb it. They are just as sure they have escalation dominance as the US is, and would love to test it out in a way that humiliates the US.

Let me answer Richard's questions for myself

1 - Everyone knows what Iran has, a nuclear program aimed at supplying Iran with several benefits, one being the ability to create a nuclear weapon if Iran ever feels it has to leave the NPT. Iran does not have a weapon or specific plans to build a weapon and is a good bet to not have any weapons in 20 years. But Iran will announce, or the IAEA and the Western analysts will announce for Iran probably in the next year or two that Iran has enough low enriched uranium that it could further enrich it to high enriched uranium in a few months, but for now all of the uranium is under safeguards and not being used to make a weapon.

Nuclear capability is not a weapon, but it makes a real, though not overwhelming change in Israel's strategic position. Israel's current policy is to pretend nuclear capability is a weapon, using the terms interchangeably. Bush has followed this practice. We'll see that policy change soon.

2 - I really don't expect there ever will be an Iranian weapon built, much less proof that a weapon is being built. If there was, Iran would still be decades away from being able to deliver a weapon to the US and probably at least a decade away from being able to deliver a weapon to Israel. Iran could make a weapon that it might be able to get to a base in Iraq or to thwart an invasion maybe in less than a year once it had the high enriched uranium. I don't see that as cause for starting a war. Israel-firsters may see it differently.

The question I consider critical in dealing with Iran is "How many of the US' unilateral sanctions should it be willing to lift just for Iran's suspending enrichment, assuming Iran will continue funding opponents of Israel"

Bush's answer is "very little", the US will lift the airplane spare parts sanctions and will enter talks about further incentives, but unless Iran stops funding opponents of Israel, the talks will not produce any benefits for Iran and so are worthless since Iran does not intend to stop funding those opponents of Israel.

Obama's answer looks to be about the same. Everything else is unimportant.

Posted by Arnold Evans | June 12, 2008 5:05 AM

I forget where I read this...I think it was a NYT or SFChron editorial...but the gist was that the U.S. should suspend refined gasoline imports into Iran in order to persuade the Iranians to stop enriching uranium.

Your foreign policy elite at work! Bold solutions are why they get paid the big bucks.

But seriously...

I agree with Evans' assessment of both 1 & 2.

But here's the question I have: Why would Iran ever attempt a nuclear strike, or any other direct attack on Israel? I know ZOMG ISLAMOFASCIST MULLAHS SO SO SCARRYYY!!! but on the real:

What possible geopolitical advantage would Iran gain?

Anybody? Anybody?

Posted by scythia | June 12, 2008 5:16 AM

Accounts that I read in the military trade press in the 2002-2003 time period were consistent in saying that (a) there were indications that Iran provided assistance to the US for the Afghanistan effort (2) Iran was interested in reaching some sort of agreement/deal with the US on formalizing relations.

So besides p***ing off long-term allies such as South Korea and newfound partners such as Vietnam, the Cheney Administration has also blown opportunities to convert one-time opponents to neutrals or better. Gotta love those guys.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 12, 2008 8:14 AM

> Everyone knows what Iran has, a nuclear program
> aimed at supplying Iran with several benefits, one
> being the ability to create a nuclear weapon

Keep in mind that as oil heads for $200/bbl Iran also has a strong incentive to develop, or at least have full control over, its own nuclear *power* program so it can stop burning oil in its electric generating plants and maximize the value of its resource in the ground.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | June 12, 2008 8:23 AM

Man, I was all ready to watch various Atlantic bloggers striking dramatic poses, maybe a bit of rock and/or roll mixed in.

I guess The Table is off the table or something.

Posted by vg | June 12, 2008 9:19 AM

"...Iran would still be decades away from being able to deliver a weapon to the US and probably at least a decade away from being able to deliver a weapon to Israel."

While, in general, I would prefer much less sabre rattling toward Iran, the quote is not true. They already have the means to deliver large payloads to Israel. They claim that they will be able to put satellites in orbit in seven months. If you can put something in orbit, you can reach anywhere on the planet. The satellites in question (communications) are probably lighter than atomic weapons, so I don't think they could deliver anything big to the US in seven months, but twenty years is an unreasonable estimate for transitioning from Sputnik to ICBMs.

Posted by Njorl | June 12, 2008 9:36 AM

Njorl, I could claim I can kill you with my mind, but that wouldn't be true. Every dictatorship has their own Baghdad Bob. Kim Jong Il claims to have hit a hole in one the first time he played golf. I'll believe Iran can launch satellites when I see it. The missiles we know about can only reach Saudi Arabia without a large payload. Adding on a huge, heavy payload like a nuclear warhead cuts down on a missile's range.

Posted by Reality Man | June 12, 2008 12:02 PM

No, Iran can launch 700 kg payloads 1600 km, probably with 50 meter accuracy.

From a CIA briefing circa 2000:
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2000/walpole_missile_092200.htm

"It will soon deploy the 1,300 km-range Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile, which will allow Iran to reach Israel and most of Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Tehran probably has a small number of Shahab-3s available for use in a conflict; it has announced that production and deployment has begun, "

"... most agree that Iran is likely to test an SLV by 2010. Such a vehicle could be converted into an ICBM capable of delivering a nuclear weapon-sized payload to the United States. A few believe such a test is unlikely until after 2010. "

Since then it is believed that they have probably increased the range of their IRBM to 2100 km, though 1600 km is all that has been observed. They self-destruct the missiles as the test leaves Iranian territory.

Perhaps the CIA and Iran are in collusoin.

Posted by Njorl | June 12, 2008 12:39 PM

One should negotiate with Iran about reasonable goals. One of those goals should be that Iran officially (as it has done unofficially) guarantee not to attack Israel. An unreasonable goal is to stop Iran from enriching uranium. They have a perfect right to do so. The U.S. has even encouraged India's "illegal" production of nuclear weapons by selling them enabling equipment; we pay Pakistan billions every year, when their own nuclear weapons program not only developed a bomb in defiance of international law, but allowed the bombmaker to peddle nuclear know how to North Korea and Libya and Iran. Given that Pakistan's bomb is actually Saudi Arabia's - they paid for the research and development - the least the U.S. could do is gain guarantees from Saudi Arabia, Israel and Pakistan disclaiming any use of nuclear weapons ever against Iran. If we wanted to encourage Iran to not make a nuclear weapon.

They will do so if they want to, but there's every indication they would simply like to have the capacity - not actually put that capacity into making a bomb.

By pinning negotiation with Iran on a non-negotiable item, the Bush administration has cleverly tied the hands of the Obama administration. Which is why the time to question the whole goal, here, is now.

By the way, I'm not quite sure why Ahmenedjad repeating a piece of rhetoric from Khomenei about Israel being wiped from the map is considered tantamount to a declaration of war, whereas the potential next prime minister of Israel openly saying Israel will bomb Iran to keep them from working on nuclear materials is all hunky dory. The latter is a much more serious threat. Should we put sanctions on Israel until they withdraw it?

Posted by roger | June 12, 2008 12:41 PM

"By the way, I'm not quite sure why Ahmenedjad repeating a piece of rhetoric from Khomenei about Israel being wiped from the map is considered tantamount to a declaration of war, whereas the potential next prime minister of Israel openly saying Israel will bomb Iran to keep them from working on nuclear materials is all hunky dory."

But.. but... but... they're the Bad Guys! They wear Black Turbans! See? If you start holding the Good Guys to the same standards as you hold the Bad Guys then it just confuses the issue. How are they supposed to know that they're the Bad Guys - and thus destined to lose - if you don't treat them that way?

Tsk. You people just don't understand serious strategery when you see it.

Posted by Tony J | June 12, 2008 1:33 PM

No, Iran can launch 700 kg payloads 1600 km, probably with 50 meter accuracy.

Little Boy, the first generation bomb that was used on Hiroshima, was 4000 kg.

As of today, Iran could neither get a 4000 kg payload to Israel on a missile or produce a working nuclear warhead that weighs 700 kg or less.

I can only guess how long it would take for Iran to design and produce a working 700kg warhead, but in round numbers I'd say around a decade.

Either way, leaving a military option on the table, or preconditions or whatever are irrelevant

Posted by Arnold Evans | June 12, 2008 1:47 PM

Like I said: Matt ignored the questions.

See?

Do I have to say anything more? Everybody weighs in - Matt is silent.

He CANNOT answer those questions because it would blow his cover.

Fuck him.

Arnold Evans analysis is correct. Iran will have "nuclear capability" which is exactly the same as Japan's. But they will probably never build a bomb unless some new Ayatollah comes to power who doesn't believe nuclear weapons are "un-Islamic."

And for this, the Republican morons want to start a war with Iran that the US is GUARANTEED to lose, at the cost of the US economy and US military?

As for Israel, it's time the UN and the international community put their asses in their place - sanctions, boycott, forced unilateral nuclear disarmament, forced withdrawal to the 1967 lines, the works. And finally, revisit the 1947 partition and undo it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 12, 2008 5:59 PM

"Little Boy, the first generation bomb that was used on Hiroshima, was 4000 kg."

The South African bomb design is believed to be available on the black market, and has a warhead that weighs 700 kg. There have been simple 2-gun designs weighing under 130 kg for over 50 years.

Posted by Njorl | June 13, 2008 9:59 AM