Syria is not only a longtime ally of Iran; it is currently its only state ally in the region. Losing Assad means losing a key friend, but it also means losing the ability to funnel weapons to Lebanon and Palestine.
As the dance between Iran and the international powers-that-be rushes onward, we need to consider the viability of pursuing political agreements when social understanding is not only absent, but obstructive.
The short-term goal of halting Iran’s nuclear program can and should be coupled with the long term goal of fostering a more democratic, open Iran, if only because the sanctions that target those worth targeting and a diplomacy that offers Iran a path to legitimacy are ultimately the solutions to both these issues.
Reworking the Strategy towards Iran. Netanyahu is becoming infamously impatient, and the reactors keep spinning (despite false claims to the contrary last week; I doubt we’ll ever really know what is actually going on in those nuclear plants). The current strategy cannot continue.
Only progress on the basis of strength can weather the severe geopolitical and socioeconomic pressures that Iran faces. The only reasonable policy reformulations are those that ensure an internally strong state able to coordinate and direct the instruments of foreign and domestic policy at the level of state bureaucracies, especially in the realm of security.
Benjamin Netanyahu’s rather literal interpretation the concept of a “red line” at the United Nations last month puzzled many, but it should draw as much worry as it draws laughter. It is no secret that Israel and the United States would prefer an Iran without nuclear weapons. Yet, the Obama administration’s disapproval of a unilateral Israeli strike and its lack of interest in initiating its own strike leave Israel in a rather awkward situation.
Within the story of the MEK lies the greater story of the ways in which the ideology and activity of a given entity can change, sometimes for worse and sometimes for better.
These “smart” sanctions have, in fact, done much to starve the very people they were supposed to protect.
Despite changing governance in the region, the United States will uphold its policies of the past three decades so long as it continues offering aid to the Egyptian military and the military respects its peace treaty with Israel.
The crux of Waltz’s argument is that “power begs to be balanced.” He suggests that “Israel’s nuclear monopoly has long fueled instability in the Middle East." I’m no fan of Israeli nukes, but I don’t think the warheads are the primary source of Israeli unpopularity.
Follow us at
Like us on
Recent Comments