About time we had a sensible article on Iran. Well done.

I can guess what Obama will do. But he should not allow his conscience, such as it is, to get in the way of good policy. Or rather, except in extreme cases, conscience should be guided by ends, not by means. Obama should not flinch at the necessary means, as long as they are within reason, to achieve a morally-justifiable end.

Of course what he will do will be spineless and a disaster. But let's see.

Obama's conscience must lead on Iran

has anyone witnessed him having a 'conscience'?

@MAM

Of course what he will do will be spineless and a disaster. But let's see.

You've contradicted yourself in the space of a single line.

@borgemonidiot

barry said something
Was it about his mum's skool certificate for him, and what she wrote next to nationality?

Um, No.

He won the 2008 Presidential election. Easily. Accept it and get used to it.

The US still spends more on defence than all other nations in the world put together and still has enough nuclear capability to destroy everything in the world several times over. If Iran ( with one quarter of the US's population and about 1% of its GDP) constitutes the US's biggest international threat, then the US is in a position of security and global strategic dominance that it has never previously enjoyed.

Unless the Martians are planning an imminent invasion, the US is as secure as it has ever been.

But such an attack, based on the principle of anticipatory self defense and launched before all peaceful routes have been exhausted, would surely not sit easily on Obama's conscience. We can but hope that President Obama remains a man led by his beliefs.

but rhetoric aside his actions are neo con hawkish.

why would anyone today accept that he is anything but more than willing to attack iran, post uk election pre iran nuclear plant commissioning and into full operation.

He should. But he won't.

Excellent article. I doubt Obama will follow any of that though.

@borgemonidiot2

Unless the Martians are planning an imminent invasion, the US is as secure as it has ever been
Where were you when 9/11 happened? On mars??

No Iranians or nuclear weapons were involved in 9/11. Your point is irrelevant and off-topic.

The rest of your post is pure ranting Glen Beck teabaggery, and therefore impossible to enagage with.

Good article Mr. Simanowitz, but I fear you're being wildly over idealistic about the Obama administration (let's not forget loyal Bush apparatchik Robert Gates is still in place), which in foreign policy is fairly indistinguishable from its predecessors.

It's giving me and I suspect many others a strong sense of deja vu. It's 2002 redux and a ''rogue state'' in the Middle East that coincidentally has masses of oil (and gas in this case) that we haven't got first dibs on, which is simply unacceptable, has got WMDs ('cause we say so, and we don't need boring old evidence) and Must Be Stopped. And of course, anyone opposing going down the war road is automatically an anti-western fan of tyranny and despotism and a fervent admirer of the regime there, etc - same old same old.

Of course, as usual, in the case of another state in the region that actually really does have a whole heap of WMDs, including nukes, and which has refused to sign the NPT and has a history of disregarding UN resolutions and invading and attacking neighbouring countries (which Iran doesn't) is ''different'' - because they're our guys, so that's okay.

President Obama's instincts will surely be to avoid conflict with Iran.

Those "instincts" are working exceedingly well in Afghanistan, are they not?

Last week Russia and the US signed the new strategic arms reduction treaty (Start) signalling a significant shift in the focus of America's nuclear strategy, from its former cold war foes to so-called rogue states.

Just another meaningless (symbolic) piece of paper.

President Obama's instincts will ensure he does everything in his power to avoid military conflict with Iran ? but he is up against hawkish elements at home.

I think Obama's policy in Afghanistan proves he is "hawkish" enough himself. Of course, that won't do for his symbolic image; the media certainly will make sure to portray him as a dove pushed into a corner by hawks at home and the Iranians abroad should he decide on military intervention. And you've mentioned Russia, China, Britain and France. Should all those nations, the U.S. and others come together to remove Iran's brainwashed brain-trust from power (perhaps the purpose here, to get that brain-trust thinking -- I hold no hope for that), and give the people of Iran their country back from the clutches of the Ayatollah's version of God, I hardly think we will hear plaintive yelps of "wrong war." But what if they don't find any WMD's?

On coming into office Obama made a clear break with George Bush's Iran strategy by demonstrating a willingness to engage in direct negotiations with Tehran without preconditions.

He said he was going to close Guantanamo too.

borgemonidiot2: Not sure who or what borgemon is, but the last part of your name's very apt - are there really two of you? And I see you're yet another of the teabagging trolls who only creates an account to make painfully stupid comments on one thread/subject. CiF really does need a TPT - Troll Proliferation Trreaty.

Obama has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no "conscience" or any scruples when it comes to furthering the interests of US imperialism in the Middle East and Central Asia. His position towards Iran is barely distinguishable from the neoconservative stance.

Serious question - if the Iranians attack Israel what should Obama do ? (And saying they won't is not an answer)

Mr Simonowitz

I have a very basic disagreement with you. Indeed all men must listen to their conscience when making decisions, but Mr Obama has a bigger obligation: he must defend the interest of the nation he was elected to lead. Mr Obama will not be serving the interest of the US if he opens up a third armed conflict in that neighborhood.

The bottom-line analysis of any military conflict with Iran is as follows. The US has enough power to prevail in all direct engagements, but Iran cannot be subdued enough to prevent a long-lasting worldwide oil shortage. The onset of fighting would lead to Iran's exports, about 3 million barrels a day, disappearing from the world market. That is enough disruption of itself.

It is unrealistic to expect that Iran would capitulate immediately and totally, so the reasonable expectation is that the oil flow from the Gulf would be disrupted for months, if not years. The result would be international pressure on the US to end the fighting rapidly, one way or another. The choice would be for the US to walk away, its international military credibility in tatters, or to mobilize a force of several millions on borrowed money and embark on a long occupation of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Either option would end in tears, and in bankruptcy.

Pragmatically speaking the war against Iran was lost in Baghdad. Mr Obama's (or anyone's) conscience is of no consequence on this matter. Iran cannot be coerced into or out of anything. With luck they might be talked into a sensible solution, but the odds are not very good. The most likely scenario is that they will become a hostile nuclear power like the USSR, and the best hope is that we will wait them out. Tthe Iranian regime, like the Soviet one, is not durable.

borgemonidiot2
14 Apr 2010, 2:09AM

Thank you for the most entertaining rant I have ever read on these pages!

he [i.e. Obama] publicly recognised the Ayatollahs as the legitimate representatives of the Iranian people,

You think -- as a human rights campaigner, according to your bio -- that this was an example of Obama following his conscience, as you would like him to do?

And what exactly would be so praiseworthy about letting a bunch of theocrats -- who don't mind at all to abuse their own people to hang on to power, and who arm Hezbollah, Hamas, and militant groups in Iraq, plus help out the Taliban -- have nukes?

Serious question - if the Iranians attack Israel what should Obama do ? (And saying they won't is not an answer)

Harryboy,

Serious question - if the Iranians attack Israel what should Obama do ? (And saying they won't is not an answer)

Perhaps it is THE answer.

What should Obama (and the rest of the world) do if Israel attacks Iran?

No doubt,that negotiations have done wonders for Obama in Iran, N Korea,and the ME.

While Obama is extending his hands to Iran,the Iranians are well on their way to building a nuclear weapon.If Obama thinks that the Iranians are hard to deal with at the moment.Then wait and see how much harder it's going to be when they are nuclear armed.

Hi Petra,

The basic problem is that there is no real evidence (at least in the public domain) that Iran is actually trying to make nuclear weapons. If I understand correctly, that country is not in violation of the NPT. Then again, if Iran is making weapons, the history of Iraq in this century is a powerful motive.

Then there is this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7979757.stm

Do as we say, not as we do, huh?

khanyunes,

I do sleep well, most of the time, thank you! The sensible part of me hates the fact that my country has nuclear weapons and wants nuclear power plants, but a small knee jerk part of me is happy that we have nukes. Compare the treatment of Iraq and North Korea at US hands.

I say a compromise is needed. Iran should be allowed to develope nuclear energy for energy needs but at the same time they must denounce Hezbollah and stop sending arms to them. I think that sounds like a fair deal.

The author is living in fantasyland. Diplomacy is not going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I happen to agree that a preemptive strike should not be made, since it would at best slow down Iran's development of the bomb. But there should be no illusions that, absent military action, Iran will have the bomb relatively soon, and the world (including Europe and the US) had better figure out how they are going to deal with that fact. I don't agree with the fact that Ahmedinejad and his henchmen constitute a "legitimate" regime (a sentiment that I am certain is shared by many Iranians). This is a dangerous development, one that puts our security at risk, and we had better figure out how we are going to contain the problem.

Obama will not attack Iran. He is too busy beating up on Israel so stop worrying.

"While many people have genuine concerns that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, the way to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear-armed nation is not to isolate Tehran. Instead rigorous international monitoring activities need to be reinstated."

It is the sophistry of these left wing appeasers that is so amusing. the utter moral depravity of appeasment is on display yet again.

OF COURSE monitoring is preferable to sanctions, as making love is preferable to making war. This issue is a complete red herring because Iran doesnt allow comprehensive monitoring. It lies, it conceals, it obfuscates, and it steadily proceeds to a nuclear test as even the last holdout, china, now finally conceedes.

What george w. bush said about iran's intentions 9 years ago has finally become consensus thinking. As we have seen with Iraq, yet again history proves Bush/Cheney correct.

Obama escalated an appropriate search and destroy mission in Afghanistan to a far bigger, messier, bloodier and utterly immoral counterinsurgency operation for one reason only. to give him cover not to deal militarily with a far bigger, bloodier, and utterly moral mission: to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power, by all means necessary.

Now these proposed sanctions will indeed bite Iran and perhaps, but very doubtfully, result in a verifiable agreement. More likely it will result in a non verifiable face saving agreement that will not stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

The reason for this predicted outcome is straightforward, The theobarbarians who rule Iran with their iron fist welcome the unifying nationalism engendered by a foreign attack. As for Obama, he is a left winger whose only priority is vote buying. Unlike a Bush, he has no interest whatsover in playing to the gallery of history. War doesn't buy votes.

A nuclear enabled Iran will, in time thru first and second order consequences , bring an end to american hegemony in the Gulf, and, thus inexorably, in the world. It will be cause for cheer on the Left and bring about their ultimate aim, kneecapping civilization itself.

@harryboy:

Do you want them to attack? You seem to be hoping that they do.

To answer your question: if Iran attacks Israel Obama should sit back, re-supply Israel, and watch the inevitable replay of the last few Middle East wars: technology versus anger. Technology always wins, the same would happen this time. So calm down.

Iran is not a military threat to anybody. They have no history of attacking their neighbors, no military tradition, and really nothing to gain by starting wars. On the contrary, Iran has been repeatedly attacked. They are basically a defensive power. Even if they would acquire "nuclear capability", it would be minimal and not usable. They still would be defenseless against superior technology and they (their military) know it.

This endless hysteria is trying to stir up another war in the Middle East, to change the game that has been lately evolving badly for the neo-con. You see, Israel, for all its power, cannot seem to be able to decide what it wants and what are its borders. So it is just stewing in a potentially catastrophic demographic situation, with 4-5 million desperate Palestinians inside its de facto borders. Instead of facing this unpleasant reality (for them), and actually trying to solve the situation, they prefer to dream about further distractions, about wars, about another temporary escape from reality. And maybe something will happen to make that unbearable reality - the 4-5 million Palestinians that have no place to go - go away.

People who like to live out their mythology tend to eventually go too far. Too many youthful dreams, too much play acting, romantic attachement to painful myths, teenage hopes to redo history, and at the end just anger. It is self-destructive and ultimately pointless. The way to peace is not through Iran. Iran is actually irrelevant in spite of their occasional emotionalism and rhetoric. They really have nothing to do with it. There is a pretty deep and hopeless hole in the Middle East already, starting a war with Iran would only make it deeper.

Hi Teacup, as far as I know, there is no serious analyst who doubts that Iran is after nuclear weapons, and e.g. the Qom facility revealed last year makes sense only for a military nuclear program. It's also proven that they are working on the missile technology to enable the delivery of nuclear weapons. The current issue of Foreign Affairs already ponders the "day after" Iran has nuclear weapons.

Of course there are quite a few serious people who think a nuclear Iran could be contained; but there are also quite a few serious people who doubt that, and there is little room for error. I wonder how you would feel if Pakistan came under Taliban (or similar) rule... BTW, just yesterday there were reports that Pakistan is revving up its nuclear fuel production (for military purposes).

The "history of Iraq in this century" you point to has of course nothing to do with the Iranian drive for nuclear arms. That started decades ago; and the ayatollahs pursued it right from the beginning of their time in power. In fact, when the US invaded Iraq, Iran was worried enough to stop its nuclear program for a while.

Last but not least, all those who are so unconcerned about a nuclear Iran might want to take into account that there are plenty of reasons to think that this would prompt many other countries in the region to go nuclear -- in fact, it's something that can already be seen. The result of a nuclear Iran may therefore very well be a nuclear Middle East.
That's perhaps an outcome that would weigh heavily on Obama's conscience -- and if it is already clear when he runs for re-election, I'm rather doubtful that this would work in his favor... Already there is a lot of talk in the Middle East that under Obama, the US is coming to be seen as a greatly diminished power.

If Iran goes nuclear,every other state in the ME,will want nuclear weapons.And it won't be too long before the terrorist will get their hands on these nuclear weapons.

I'm with US Senator Lindsay Graham on this,he is right,there should be no way that allows Iran to go nuclear,every possible means should be used to make absolutely sure that this never ever happens.

MoveAnyMountain

I can guess what Obama will do. But he should not allow his conscience, such as it is, to get in the way of good policy. Or rather, except in extreme cases, conscience should be guided by ends, not by means. Obama should not flinch at the necessary means, as long as they are within reason, to achieve a morally-justifiable end. Of course what he will do will be spineless and a disaster. But let's see.

Obama and his groupies are well aware that Jimmy Carters single term as president, was defined mainly by the Iran hostage crisis which was solved only when the Iranian 'peace loving' regime realised that they had Reagan to deal with.

This is what he faces.

Teacup,the evidence that you are seeking whether Iran is on it's way to achieving a nuclear weapon or not might come in the shape of a mushroom cloud.

Can we afford to risk it.

All I can add that may be of some worth here is that if any policy maker in the current administration has to get inspiration form this article (or some commentary hyperbole) here, then God help us all.!

Not only Iran but also US, UK, China, France, Israel, Pakistan, India etc. shouldn't have nuclear weapons:
http://www.necdetyilmaz.com/2010/04/nuclear-security-summit/

ObamaTheGreat;(Almighty King Of the Rabid Liberals)
It was only yesterday that I was contemplating posting the same picture for my profile..
Awesome!

Nice sentiments...well thought through, reasonable, with little chance, in my opinion of happening....US policies are invariably coercive...it's part of the DNA of the nation...when you are the most powerful and good people on the planet, why waste time negotiating with people who don't see it your way?
The drumbeat for war was imprinted in my brain in 2003....I'm almost sure I'm hearing those same drums beating now....

Basically, to me, you can't stop proliferation, you can only delay it....it would seem prudent to come up with some strategies of dealing with the proliferation after it occurs, rather than sticking our thumb in the collective dike (is it dike or dyke?)....the one thing that is encouraging is that of all the countries with nuclear weapons (Pakistan, India, Israel etc etc) no one has ever used them, except the US in WWII of course...maybe having the responsibility of the awesome power somehow reinforces their position as defensive weapons of last resort....

In truth, I think that Iran with a nuclear weapon would change the balance of power in the middle east, I don't think that it would be used by Iran...the 'success' of nuclear weapons was the threat of mutual destruction...Iran is no different, it doesn't want to be destroyed, and so would never use the weapon offensively....what Iran gets is respect on the block...having said that, if I were Israel, I wouldn't want my mortal enemy getting such a weapon...

I think Obama is simply resigned to the inevitably of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

I guess he figures it is safer to deal with and contain a nuclear Iran than to attack Iran and open a giant Pandora's box of problems.

Teacup,the evidence that you are seeking whether Iran is on it's way to achieving a nuclear weapon or not might come in the shape of a mushroom cloud.
Can we afford to risk it

Iran is a weak country and there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Even if they developed nuclear weapons, they wouldn't be any more likely to use them than the US or Israel. If you're worried about mushroom clouds, you should be in favor of disarming Israel which actually has nuclear weapons.

As a step towards a resolution of this protracted problem, Iran's counter-proposal seemed positive, but it was dismissed.

This should say it all really. Other news outlets have been trying show this significant detail in the media, but the amount of non-coverage of this against the Iran "evil" non-compliant regime coverage has absolutely drowned it.

You'll no doubt get the posters giving the US the right to such bullish behavior, without anything close to a reasoned argument as to who gave the US that right, specially after what happened with Irak's WMDs.

For the US to view Iran's complete cessation of all enrichment activities as the goal of nuclear negotiations with Tehran is not only unrealistic but to a certain extent unnecessary.

Not to mention illegal under the NPT and hypocritical in view of the US role in other country's nuclear weapons.

We can but hope that President Obama remains a man led by his beliefs.

Indeed. Though Kennedy's unsolved assasination and the massive and general cover-up and civilian inaction that followed will not encourage him greatly.

@PetraMB brings out the ultimate argument when all else fails, what if everybody would do it?

PetraMB says:
"this would prompt many other countries in the region to go nuclear -- in fact, it's something that can already be seen. The result of a nuclear Iran may therefore very well be a nuclear Middle East."

In the area around Iran there are already a number of nuclear states: Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel. So we already have for all practical purposes a nuclear Middle East. If Iran becoming a very junior member of this group would make others go immediately nuclear then we are in more trouble there than most people would think. Quite a neighborhood.

The reality that PetraMB and others don't like to talk about is that they simply want to be able to maintain total unchallenged supremacy in the area. Iran having even a theoretical deterrent drives them crazy. What kind of nutty policies are you people planning that you want any potentail rival to be totally helpless? The neo-con insistence on total supremacy should scare us more than a pitiful "speeded up" centrifuges in Qom. We might be in for a rupture as a way to solve the unsolvable...

borgemonidiot

CNN a socialist entity? Is the Guardian sharing blogs with Fox?

borgemonidiot

The US could not stomach a few thousand soldiers to die

Just when you think it can't get worse. So why did the US send "few thousand soldiers" to their dead in an unnecessary invasion? Please don't come up with the security crap.

The world over (except for the likes of El Salvador) knew that it was pure bullshit from the start, and after few thousand dead soldiers only did the US public had to "stomach" the actual truth: that is, that either their government is useless in following intelligence reports or they are simply corrupt to the point of being completely careless about the lives of "their" soldiers. I think it's both pathetic and insulting.

We can but hope that President Obama remains a man led by his beliefs.

There's that word again: "hope."

And just what are those "beliefs?" Who can tell? One day he is a "cap and trade" environmentalist, the next day he's all for drilling for oil; one day he's a Washington outsider, the next day he's surrounding himself with insiders galore; one day he's all for "transparency," the next day he's keeping secrets just the same as Bush -- or worse; one day he's for closing the Guantanamo torture chamber and sets a date, the next day he's ho hum as that date passes by; one day he's against the surge in Iraq, the next day he's surging into Afghanistan. If I were the Ayatollah's of Iran, I wouldn't have much "hope" that Obama's "beliefs" (besides the beliefs of quite a few other countries) are going to allow them to have nuclear arms, especially with all these "bunker buster" munitions shipments and "large-scale naval manoeuvers" going on.

he publicly recognised the Ayatollahs as the legitimate representatives of the Iranian people,

That's supposed to be a good thing for the Ayatollah's? That just means they are the people that will be targeted for removal from power -- as they should be.

Yes Petra,

Possibly and they may even be right, but that isn't the same as evidence. Remember Saddam's WMDs and 45 minutes to launch? The trouble with crying wolf (Bush, not you) is that when there is a real wolf people may ignore your cries for help. Israel can hardly afford to give lectures on the subject, can it?

Personally, and peace be unto MAM, I am for universal de-nuclearisation - weapons first, power plants next. What I find had to stomach (digest, in Assamese) is the double standards - one for the west, another for the rest, compounded by yet other standards for Israel.

The middle-east is already nuclearized and it isn't Iran or Syria that dunnit.

PetraMB

plus help out the Taliban

Do they really though, or are you just repeating what you read superficially? I think the latter, though you might prove me wrong. Will you?