Memo to Robert Gates: Where's the sense of urgency?
In an interview with Al-Jazeera's English-language channel that was aired on Monday, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urged US allies in the Arab world to strengthen their military capabilities and defense cooperation with Washington as a means of pressuring Iran to back off its nuclear program. Gates said "one of the pathways to get the Iranians to change their approach on the nuclear issue is to persuade them that moving down that path will actually jeopardize their security, not enhance it.
"So the more that our Arab friends and allies can strengthen their security capabilities, the more they can strengthen their co-operation, both with each other and with us, I think sends the signal to the Iranians that this path they're on is not going to advance Iranian security but in fact could weaken it," he said.
I will have video of the interview (which for some reason does not included the quoted statements) further down in this post, but first I want to discuss Gates' call to Arab countries.
Gates' call is based on two false assumptions. First, he assumes that Arab countries strengthening themselves will deter Iran. It will not. The Arab countries are highly unlikely to attack Iran unless they themselves are attacked first. Countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the countries of the Gulf are unlikely to attack Iran in response to an attack on Israel or even on Europe. So long as Iran does not disrupt oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, it is unlikely that any Arab country will respond to anything that Iran does.
Second, Gates assumes that Iran can be deterred. It cannot be deterred. In assuming that Iran can be deterred, Gates is assuming that Iran will behave rationally, as was assumed regarding the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The assumption that Iran will behave as a rational actor, like the Soviet Union behaved during the Cold War, may not have a basis in reality, certainly when it comes to the possibility of Iran attacking Israel, and maybe not when it comes to the possibility of Iran attacking the United States and other countries either. This is why Israel has said time and time again that it cannot live with a nuclear Iran.
America's Cold War strategy against Russia was based on a doctrine called Mutually Assured Destruction (or MAD). As a college student majoring in Political Science in the late 70's, I learned the theory from one of the world's top experts in it: Professor Warner Schilling. MAD started with the assumption that each of the US and USSR was a rational actor that cared about its people and would not want to see mass death and destruction against its country or its people. Once each side was convinced that regardless of what happened, the other side would have a second-strike capability (an ability to respond) in the event of a nuclear attack, it would not attack the other side.
That theory worked well for the US and the USSR. It doesn't work for Iran. Keep in mind that the post I just linked and the article I am about to quote (from Ron Rosenbaum in Pajamas Media) were both written more than two years ago, when Iran was nowhere near as far along the trail to nuclear weapons as they are today.
Gates' call is based on two false assumptions. First, he assumes that Arab countries strengthening themselves will deter Iran. It will not. The Arab countries are highly unlikely to attack Iran unless they themselves are attacked first. Countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the countries of the Gulf are unlikely to attack Iran in response to an attack on Israel or even on Europe. So long as Iran does not disrupt oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, it is unlikely that any Arab country will respond to anything that Iran does.
Second, Gates assumes that Iran can be deterred. It cannot be deterred. In assuming that Iran can be deterred, Gates is assuming that Iran will behave rationally, as was assumed regarding the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The assumption that Iran will behave as a rational actor, like the Soviet Union behaved during the Cold War, may not have a basis in reality, certainly when it comes to the possibility of Iran attacking Israel, and maybe not when it comes to the possibility of Iran attacking the United States and other countries either. This is why Israel has said time and time again that it cannot live with a nuclear Iran.
America's Cold War strategy against Russia was based on a doctrine called Mutually Assured Destruction (or MAD). As a college student majoring in Political Science in the late 70's, I learned the theory from one of the world's top experts in it: Professor Warner Schilling. MAD started with the assumption that each of the US and USSR was a rational actor that cared about its people and would not want to see mass death and destruction against its country or its people. Once each side was convinced that regardless of what happened, the other side would have a second-strike capability (an ability to respond) in the event of a nuclear attack, it would not attack the other side.
That theory worked well for the US and the USSR. It doesn't work for Iran. Keep in mind that the post I just linked and the article I am about to quote (from Ron Rosenbaum in Pajamas Media) were both written more than two years ago, when Iran was nowhere near as far along the trail to nuclear weapons as they are today.
Read All at :
Israel Matzav: Memo to Robert Gates: Where's the sense of urgency?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment