Another establishment figure, Will Marshall, calls for containing a nuclear Iran

By 6

Here is another important American intervention against the idea of attacking Iran: center-left Will Marshall saying “Yes, we can contain Iran” at Foreign Policy.

By taking deterrence off the table, Obama is upping the stakes in this confrontation. He is saying, in effect, that the United States can’t live with a nuclear-armed Iran. This may have the tactical effect of turning up the heat on Tehran, but it also paints the United States into a corner. If diplomatic and economic pressures fail to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Obama will be left with no option but to use force, or see his bluff called and America’s credibility shattered…

The history of nuclear proliferation shows that the United States has never forcibly stopped another country from going nuclear. U.S. airstrikes could set back Iran’s enrichment program, but America can’t stand watch over the country in perpetuity. What’s more, a U.S. attack could unite the regime and the opposition Green Movement, which also insists on Iran’s right to develop civilian nuclear energy.

This might be the worst outcome of all. In the long run, the best bet for defusing the threats posed by a nuclear Iran is a new government in Tehran, constrained by truly representative institutions and the rule of law. A firm police of deterrence, unlike a fleeting military strike, could hasten such positive political change.

Fareed Zakaria has said as much, under his breath; maybe now he will push this idea. John Mearsheimer has also said it, I believe. And Brian Williams of NBC notioned it the other night. Scott McConnell has pointed out that Americans, Russians and Chinese have all lived with the threat of nukes. When is this idea going to catch on?

Being an idealist not a realist myself, I am for all countries in the Middle East disarming. (Give me another five years of observing the human comedy, I mean tragedy, and I’ll be a full-on realist.)

Also note that Marshall is head of the Progressive Policy Institute. Josh Block, the Israel lobbyist, is a fellow there. Block recently launched a smear campaign against a fellow left-center thinktank, the Center for American Progress, over this very question– the Iran threat to Israel. So the liberal consensus is shattering.

Related Posts

6 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

RE: “Another establishment figure, Will Marshall, calls for containing a nuclear Iran” ~ Weiss

MY PURELY RHETORICAL QUESTION: Can it possibly be any more difficult to contain a nuclear Iran than it has been to contain a nuclear Israel? See the excerpt below dealing with Reagan, Begin, “blood libels”, and bald faced liars.

SEE: How Many Violations of US Arms Laws are Too Many? ~ by Franklin Lamb, Counterpunch, 3/16/12

(excerpt). . . Alarm centered on whether or not Israel had used U.S.-supplied antipersonnel cluster bombs against civilian targets during its carpet bombing West Beirut during the nearly three month siege.
The House Foreign Affairs Committee held hearings on this issue in July and August 1982. On July 19, 1982, the Reagan Administration announced that it would prohibit new exports of cluster bombs to Israel…
…During a late June 1982 meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Begin, Reagan was handed a note from George Shultz. Based on the information he had in hand, Reagan directly told Begin that the US had reliable information than Israel was using American weapons against civilians in Lebanon. At this point according to Reagan, Begin became very agitated. He lowered his glasses and while glaring at Reagan and shaking his index finger said, “Mr. President, Israel has never and would never use American weapons against civilians and to claim otherwise is a blood libel against every Jew, everywhere.” Following their meeting Reagan told Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, as reported by Weinberger and by various biographers of Reagan that “I did not know what the term “blood libel” meant, but I know that the man looked me straight in the eyes and lied to me.”. . .

ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/16/how-many-violations-of-us-arms-laws-are-too-many/

0
0

“Being an idealist… (Give me another five years… and I’ll be a full-on realist.)”
.

Phil, the world needs MORE idealists!

If everyone was motivated by what “could be,” many /most / all? of the world’s problems would be solved tomorrow.

Being an idealist in the world, today, is a very rough road. As such, it’s also an act of courage.

If you can’t hang on completely, over the years, how about trying to stop at least at becoming an “idealistic realist”?

When all the idealists have given up or been beaten down, the world will be lost and “they” will have won.

Keep the faith, my brother.

0
0

“Will Marshall, calls for containing a nuclear Iran”

Makes sense. Now, on to containing nuclear Israel!

0
0

Fareed opened his Sunday program with his containment message today. and clearly his guest list has been in support of such an idea. Dr. Zbig and General Dempsey over the last month

0
0

RE: “Another establishment figure, Will Marshall, calls for containing a nuclear Iran” ~ Weiss

BUT SEE: Are Obama’s Efforts to Justify Drone Warfare Aimed at Iran? ~ By Thomas Darnstädt, Marc Hujer and Gregor Peter Schmitz, Der Speigel, 3/15/12

(excerpts)…In his Chicago speech, Holder addressed the question of when the United States could avail itself of its “inherent right of national self-defense” by using lethal force against individuals. Under international law, an “imminent threat” represents the earliest point at which a country has the right to use such force. According to Holder, “the evaluation of whether an individual presents an ‘imminent threat’ incorporates considerations of the relevant window of opportunity to act, the possible harm that missing the window would cause to civilians, and the likelihood of heading off future disastrous attacks against the United States.”…
Laying the Legal Groundwork for Iran
Given these views, experts fear that Holder’s argument in support of the war on terror could also serve as a rationale for possible future military strikes ordered by Obama. Claus Kress, a Cologne-based professor of international law and an internationally renowned expert on the US’s stance on the laws of war, believes that it is “not inconceivable” that, in justifying the drone war, Obama’s top lawyers may have already set their sights on an altogether different target: Iran.

Legally speaking, a military strike against the mullahs’ nuclear program — which Obama believes is conceivable should it become verifiably clear that there is no other way to stop Iran from building a bomb — would only be possible with the permission of the United Nations Security Council. But the Russians and the Chinese would probably veto any such consent. As a result, the United States would have to invoke its “inherent” right of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. Still, this requires that Iran has essentially raised its weapon against Israel or the United States.
Indeed, in the conventional sense, a planned or even a completed nuclear bomb alone would not qualify as an imminent attack. But the world of experts on the laws or war could also theoretically accept that a preventive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is the last option for preventing the uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons and the imminent destruction of Israel.
Perhaps that was what Holder was trying to tell the world with his justification of the war on terror.

ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,821151,00.html

0
0
View Replies (1)