In what strikes me as another death-knell for neoconservatism, Ken Pollack, a key supporter of the Iraq military intervention, draws the line at Iran. He wants a real deal on nukes or containment – and his arguments are solid (of course, I’ve made them myself for years now). First off, a mere air-strike wouldn’t do much but delay Iran’s nuclear program – which, if Iran were attacked, they would almost certainly re-start with even more vigor and pride than before. Second, a strike would empower all those forces and factions in Iran, like the Revolutionary Guards, that seek deeper and deeper religious conflict. Third, the strikes would not be the end of a conflict, but merely the beginning:
The Iranians almost certainly would retaliate. They might fire missiles at American bases in the Middle East, or persuade allies like Hezbollah and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to fire rockets at Israel. But my biggest fear is that they would embark on a prolonged terrorist campaign against Americans, including attacks on the homeland. The Iranians have said as much, and the United States intelligence community believes that they have expanded their capacity to do so since their failed attempt to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States in 2011.
You want another wave of Jihadist terrorism in the US? Do what Netanyahu and Kristol want. But Pollack also notes that if the US struck, and Iran retaliated with terror strikes, the conflict would inevitably escalate:
I fear that if we started using force in the belief that we could keep it limited, we would either fail and find ourselves facing an enraged, nuclear Iran, or be dragged into another large-scale, protracted war in the Middle East. Containment is hardly a perfect policy, but I see the costs and risks as more easily mitigated than those of war.
But a serious deal would obviate both bad options, help us out with Afghanistan, empower the Green Movement, and allow us to put more pressure on Greater Israel to return to its proper 1967 borders, with land swaps. Win-win-win – and a way out of our long Middle East entrapment. Fred Kaplan implores the administration to think big:
For years, many have noted that the problems in the Middle East are so intricately related that it would be hard to solve each on its own. Obama may have before him a rare convergence of events, factors, and forces where at least some of those problems can be dealt with simultaneously. He has a remarkable chance to pull the gold ring. Maybe it will prove to be the diplomatic equivalent of the Maltese Falcon, the stuff that dreams are made of. But maybe it could be the real deal. Either way, it’s worth grabbing at the chance.
My feelings entirely. Omid Memarian profiles Rouhani:
Tehran’s former mayor, Gholamhossein Karbashchi, who met with Rouhani both before and after the June election, told the Daily Beast that Rouhani throughout his political life “has tried to control extremism and radicalism among the Iranian political forces.” The three words to best define Rouhani are “disciplined, rational, and convincing,” according to the former mayor who says that Rouhani is meticulous in both form and manner. “He pays serious attention to his clothes and appearance,” says Karbaschi, adding that the president is known for his verbal skills. “Sometimes he defeats his opponent through jokes and humor. He is an intelligent and expert orator, never interrupts anyone, and pays close attention.”
Walt examines the challenges ahead:
The United States and Iran may begin direct discussions and explore lots of options, yet ultimately end up unable to cut a deal. That effort will be complicated by the opposition from hard-liners on both sides, who will look for any opportunity to toss a monkey wrench into the process. So a lot depends on how well you think Obama and Rouhani can control the domestic politics in their respective countries and explain to the relevant stakeholders why a deal would be better for nearly everyone.
My guess is that Rouhani will have an easier time than Obama will, in part because Obama will face potent opposition from Israel, its supporters in the United States, and countries like Saudi Arabia. These actors would rather keep Washington and Tehran at odds forever, and it’s a safe bet that they will do everything they can to run out the clock and thwart this latest attempt to turn a corner in the troubled U.S. relationship with Iran.
Remember Bill Kristol’s outrageous call last week for Israel to strike Iran to pre-empt the US president. Jeffrey Goldberg, on the other hand, thinks Israel can play a constructive role:
Netanyahu’s role is to play bad cop to what I hope will be Obama’s ambivalent cop. One of the dangers of the coming weeks is that the White House will become so excited by the prospect of a resolution to the nuclear issue that it ends up making a bad deal, one that allows Iran to retain at least some capability to manufacture nuclear weapons. Or Iran’s negotiators might find themselves unpleasantly surprised by the extent of the Obama administration’s demands, and ultimately balk.
… Rohani, assuming he’s sincere, doesn’t have much time. The hardliners in the Revolutionary Guard Corps are lying in wait. It would be premature for the U.S. to lift sanctions now, before anything substantive has happened. But it would also be a mistake to be too rigid.
(Photo of Rouhani by Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty Images)
The Dish 