Problems with the Squeeze Iran Strategy (And a Reluctant Hat Tip to Ron Paul)

Problems with the Squeeze Iran Strategy (And a Reluctant Hat Tip to Ron Paul):

Robert Wright in the Atlantic, expert on everything
from God to foreign policy, notes that, apparently just for
absolutely random reasons that have nothing to do with an actual
educated and wise overall perspective on history and policy,
because God forbid he have to admit Ron Paul is actually
intelligent on foreign policy in a way no one else in national
politics is, Ron Paul is right that we seem to be deliberately

pushing Iran toward war:

A week ago Ron Paul tried to convey how the ever-tightening
sanctions on Iran--which may
soon include an embargo on its oil--look from an Iranian
point of view: It's as if China were to blockade the Gulf of
Mexico, he said--"an act of war".

This is sheer conjecture; Ron Paul is no expert on Iran. But now
someone who does have relevant credentials has
weighed in, and the picture he paints is disturbingly reminiscent
of the one Paul painted. It suggests we may be closer to war than
most people realize.

Vali Nasr, in addition to being a highly respected expert on the
Middle East, belongs to a family that, according
to Lobelog's sources, has "a direct line into Iranian Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's inner circle." In a Bloomberg
View piece that is getting a lot of attention, Nasr
reports that "Iran has interpreted sanctions that hurt its oil
exports, which account for about half of government revenue, as
acts of war." Indeed, the Iranian leadership now sees U.S. policy
as "aimed at regime change."

In this light, Iran's recent threats--notably that it will close
the Strait of Hormuz in response to an oil embargo--shouldn't be
dismissed, says Nasr. "The regime in Tehran is ready for a
fight."

The good news is that Nasr thinks war can be averted. The bad
news is that to accomplish this America and other Western powers
need to "imagine how the situation looks from Tehran"--not exactly
a favorite pastime among American politicians these days.....

Iran's nuclear scientists have recently evinced a tendency to
get assassinated, and a mysterious explosion at a military facility
happened to kill the general in charge of Iran's missile program.
These things were almost certainly done by Israel, possibly with
American support. If you were Iranian, would you consider
assassinations on your soil grounds for attacking the suspected
perpetrators?

Well, we know that some notable Americans think assassinating
people on American soil is punishable by war.
After the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate a Saudi Ambassador in
Washington was uncovered, Bill Kristol (whom you may recall from
our previous run-up to a disastrous war)recommended that
we attack Iran.

But I'm guessing that if I tried this Iran-America analogy out
on Kristol, he might detect asymmetries. For example: We're us,
whereas they're just them.

Underlying our Iran strategy is the assumption that if we keep
ratcheting up the pressure, the regime will eventually say uncle. A
problem with this premise is that throughout human history rulers
have shown an aversion to being seen by their people as
surrendering. Indeed, when you face dissent, as the Iranian regime
does, there's actually a certain appeal to confronting an external
threat, since confrontation tends to consolidate domestic support.
As Nasr puts it, "the ruling clerics are responding with shows of
strength to boost solidarity at home."

This doesn't mean Iran's rulers haven't wanted to make a deal.
But it does mean the deal would have to leave these rulers with a
domestically plausible claim to have benefited from it, and it also
means these leaders can't afford to be seen begging for the deal.
When President Ahmadinejad visited New York last year, he gave
reporters unmistakable
signals that he wanted to negotiate, but the Obama
administration chose to ignore them. After Ahmadinejad "went home
empty handed," reports Nasr, power increasingly shifted to Iranians
who argued for confrontation over diplomacy.

Even so, Iran's foreign minister made another appeal to re-open
talks only days ago, suggesting that they be held in Turkey. But,
as the New York Times reported,
western nations interpreted this overture "as an effort by Iran to
buy time to continue its program." Got that? If Iranians refuse to
negotiate it means they don't want a deal, and if they ask to
negotiate it means they don't want a deal....

There are historical analogs to this
sort of thing, U.S. provocation and refusal to use diplomacy
intelligently contributing to the start of a war, and the outcome
was bad for all concerned. While the insulting way Wright frames
this infuriates the Paul fan in me, it's nice to see this outlook
expressed, especially in the Atlantic, a magazine that
loves nothing more than long feature articles war-gaming our
looming and necessary wars with nearly everyone in the world.

Yes, intelligent application of empathy can actually help forge
a foriegn policy that contributes to peace and prosperity, and it's
not an accident that the only national politician who gets that
talks sense on Iran.