Iranian Nukes - There Is No Deterrence

I didn't see tonight's GOP Presidential foreign policy debate, but a couple of quotes caught my attention. First, I have to applaud Perry for his position that we should reset foreign aid to zero, and not give any to uncooperative nations. Second, I was disturbed about the zeal of some of the candidates for going to war to prevent Iranian possession of nukes. To be clear, this was discussed as a last resort, but is still a bad idea, regardless. The threat of war is normally considered a deterrent, but, to paraphrase Israel Kasnett, deterrence only works when one's opponents have rational self-interest. However, Iranians leaders desire war with the west as a way to hasten the return of the 12th Madi.

The basic tenet of deterrence is built on a foundation of rational decision making by both sides – a capacity which Iran lacks.

So what is to be done? I think a policy of deliberate de-escalation on the part of the United States, coupled with a publicity campaign that makes it clear to the Iranian people that their leaders are endangering the safety of their people. Ultimately, we are going to have to play a subtle game, because public breast beating and escalation of tensions plays into Iranian desires. Newt, who thinks himself very clever, has apparently not thought this through. My opinion is that the Iranians are counting on the Israelis being the ones who will take action. However, the Saudis are probably the nation most threatened by Iranian nuclear ambitions. This is because the Saudis control Muslim's holiest cities and are the chief expositors of Sunni theology, which relegates the Shiite Persians to second class status. As this threat becomes more real the potential to pick up allies in the Middle East increases. However, early unilateral action allows the Saudis and others to sit on their hands and blame us for being Islamophobic.

If the Iranians only have a few nukes initially, they aren't going to target a nation with BMD defenses and potentially wasted their one invaluable resource, getting all of the downside associated with a strike, but none of the upside.

Let's be clear, the Iranians may end up launching a nuke, where it might land and whether it would detonate are open questions. As regrettable as that might be, we may have to wait and use that opportunity to reshape the world. I don't think the Iranian people are going to be too happy with a regime that puts them at risk.

Just A Reminder - Freedom Coalition Foreign Policy

The Tea Party has been criticized for a lack of foreign policy. I don't care, a movement, unlike a political party or a candidate for national office, doesn't require a foreign policy plank. However, I remind my readers that my Freedom Coalition Agenda, which pre-dates the Tea Party has the following plank:

Support Freedom Abroad. Newly liberated peoples the world over have shown a propensity to embrace freedom and markets when the yoke of tyranny has been lifted. The policy of America should be to actively work against dictatorship in all its forms (Islamic, Socialist, Fascist and Communist). We should seek to advance the cause of freedom, not through force of arms, but through steady pressure. Every piece of foreign policy should be weighed against this end. Further, we are also ready to use force of arms in this cause when defense of our national interest requires it. Americans resonate with the concepts of helping to liberate peoples from tyranny, this is a winner. We especially decry the pathetic kow-towing to dictatorship in our own hemisphere in the shameful treatment of Honduras by the Obama administration.

Clearly, Obama has recently shown that even as they are falling, he isn't averse to kow-towing to dictators in the Middle East as well.

British correspondent Nile Gardiner echoes my sentiments with the headline, "Do Tyrants Fear America Anymore." The answer is a resounding no, because of the timidity of our commander in chief.

It has also become abundantly clear that the Obama team attaches little importance to human rights issues, and in contrast to the previous administration has not pursued a freedom agenda in the Middle East and elsewhere. It places far greater value upon engagement with hostile regimes, even if they are carrying out gross human rights abuses, in the mistaken belief that appeasement enhances security. This has been the case with Iran, Russia and North Korea for example. This administration has also been all too willing to sacrifice US leadership in deference to supranational institutions such as the United Nations, whose track record in standing up to dictatorships has been virtually non-existent.

The White House’s painful navel-gazing on Libya last week, with even the French adopting a far tougher stance, is cause for grave concern.

Indeed.