Great post over all at explaining the deficiencies of US relations towards Iran.

I'm all for portraying Iran as the under dog in this if it helps prevent war. And by every measurable account - they are the under dog. But Walt's argument is predicated upon his assertion that the Arab spring is inherently bad for Iran. Syria is going down and therefore Iran too will be weakened and pose less of a threat to United States' interests. Therefore, the US should stop the saber rattling and engage.

The myth of Arab-Persian ethnic differences has no place in a post by a self-described "realist in an ideological age".

But what happens when these Arab governments that are MORE responsive to their people's interests begin making foreign policy decisions that benefit Iran? (Re: Egypt's statements and Iran engaging Syrian opposition groups) Then will it become necessary and OK for the US to contain Iran with covert warfare?

-@ANPour

It isn't difficult to imagine the present behavior of the United States towards Iran is a long term effort at containment. The present intention of the United States to avoid military engagement with Iran maybe formed from the understanding that such military engagement would severely damage US relations with other countries. Within the UN Security Council, there have already been impasses over Iranian nuclear activities.

I don't think engagement with Iran will work.

The reason for my assessment is deep inside the Shia religion. The core of the Shia religion is resistance to oppression and dictatorship as Imam Ali did it.

So, for a successful US engagement policy with Iran, the US has to stop being an oppressor. To get friendly and warm reactions from the Shia it's not enough to engage with Iran, but to stop bullying and to stop oppressing other people in the region and the world.

For the region, what shifts in U.S. policy that would require to begin with is quite clear:

- stop supporting Israel to suppress the Palelstinian people
- stop Bahraini Emir to suppress the Bahraini people
- stop the Saudis to suppress their people - and especially the Shia

And on the more distant international level there are a lot more cases where the US sides with oppressors. The Shia theology of resistance will not alow the Iranian leadership to engage with oppressors.

So, to successfully engage with Iran, the US would have to change it's global attitude of bullying other nations and people. Of course, stopping to suppress other people would be a winning strategy for the US, but I can't see that the U.S. is somehow prepared to change the behaviour it developed over many years.

I fear to train the US to change it's bullying behaviour would need longer than the time it may take to train an alligator to become vegetarian.

Can you train an alligator to become vegetarian?

Dr. Walt seems to be ignoring one rather key fact. IRAN already is acting like it is at war with the US.

Iran, despite its Shia heritage, offers aid and comfort to SUNNI extremists, including hi-level al Qa'ida members, just so long as they don't target any Iranian interests.

Iran also provides weapons, including deadly EFPs, to all manner of insurgent groups in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador was just the icing on the cake.

i Agree in Refineries, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, drilling rigs, and pumping rigs that have various degrees of vulnerability. In addition, the US has fought or aided conflicts against muslims and supported regimes that have oppressed muslims, so America does not look so good from muslim perspectives.....Thanks ! Seguro Imoveis Massagistas Acompanhantes Ar Condicionado Carro

My problem with this war with Iran talk is that I agree with both sides. Both sides, for and against, present intelligent arguments regarding a pre-emptive* strike against Iran. I honestly don't know which to go with. I believe I will wait for the next major event to take place and then let that drive my decision. Being a staunch moderate, I suspect that the majority of America is more or less in the same boat as me as well. So, I guess the ball is in Iran's court, so to speak. Your move Tehran...

*A Preemptive strike against Iran would actually, historically speaking, be more of a retaliatory strike; given how many Americans they have both directly, and indirectly killed over the last 30 years. So speaking bluntly, they'd kinda have it coming.

I agree completely with Walt here. The incessant discussion about going to war can become a self fulfilling prophesy.

One minor objection -- "sober people like Andrew Sullivan". He currently has written some reasonable things about the conflict with Iran but a sober person? He was calling for the jailing of antiwar activists and even advocated the use of Nuclear weapons against Arabs during the build up to the War in Iraq. He retracted and apologized for those statements but it will more than that for him to be considered "sober".

I have to wonder if those Iranian missle sights did not have a little outside help when they blew up. Yes, lets have a war with Iran the world is over populated anyway isn't it? A good world war will surely reduce the worlds population just don't come out of your bunkers for 10000 years. It is always good to change the subject from the world's financial meltdown a good war should fit the bill. Isn't this all a little insane?

There are some good points in the article and it is impossible to imagine any state that takes itself even a little seriously, not responding strongly to cyberattacks, assassinations and bomb attacks that would no doubt qualify as "terrorism" if they had happened in the West (Imagine that Lawrence Livermore National Lab had been blown up by Iranian agents)

I will leave aside the "peculiar nature" of the Iranian regime or its choice to place itself as the mortal enemy of Israel (although, given that Iran has few natural (as opposed to propaganda or ideological) "strategic" interests there that should give a "realist" pause to consider if his way of thinking is really applicable to Iran's rulers)

My issue is with Walt's, frankly naive, belief that maybe, just maybe, a deal could be struck that would make Iran forego its nuclear program. I think Walt fails to understand what nuclear weapons are in a world where military/physical violence are real risks and real factors in international calculations. It is true that Westerners, and Europeans in particular, may have come to see nuclear weapons as "obsolete" in power calculations. After all, these days, with the euro crisis, no one really doubts that Berlin is the other great seat of power in the West and I think the degree to which Germany has become more powerful than a struggling France or sidelined Britain has surprised even Germans. And Germany has no nuclear weapons. So nuclear weapons are not powerful, it would seem.

The trouble with that analysis is that Germany may not have nuclear weapons but that is because NATO provides a cover, effectively removing the threat of military attacks. It is like a banker: he may be more powerful than a nightclub bouncer in a well-policed society. But if both suddenly found themselves in a remove village in the Amazon or the Congo and without means to leave immediately, suddenly a rough, muscular guy would see a relative power increase compared to a soft-spoken banker. because the environment is more suited to his particular abilities.

Iran, unlike Germany, is not allied to a major nuclear power. In fact, it has a long and bitter conflict with two nuclear powers, and with several others , Britain, France, also very unfriendly towards it. Therefore, asking Iran not to get nuclear weapons, is like asking a cowboy not to get a gun, in a small town full of enemies that have guns. The point is, nuclear weapons are extremely relevant to Iran's strategic situation and any strategist worth his salt would say that Tehran would have every incentive to acquire them. Therefore, there is roughly zero chance that Iran will give up its nuclear program and given how dangerous that could be, that makes the "silent war" more understandable. Yes, America's actions are provocative but Walt is left arguing a case somewhat similar to "Hitler is sinking our ships full of arms to Britain because we are provoking him by sending weapons there" (before Pearl Harbor). True but that did not make it any less right or smart to send weapons to Britain.

An illuminating analysis that goes far beyond the junk that passes for "informed opinion" in our MSM. When are Dr. Walt's thoughts going to start appearing on a regular basis in--say--the NYT or WaPo???

It's true that Iran couldn't use nuclear weapons against Israel or the U.S without inviting total destruction, however that doesn't mean that Iran isn't a threat if it does manage to create nuclear weapons. However the question is whether or not Iran can be convinced to abandon it through diplomatic efforts. The dangers of falling into the Iraq-trap and concluding that our government has access to secret information about Iran is obvious, but the possibility does exist that Iran is not interested in anything but delaying talks. Unfortunately that's something that only some upper level officials and spies across the world might be able to answer.

Recently published in the Associated Press

December 6, 2011
Prince Hints Saudi Arabia May Join Nuclear Arms Race
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — A Saudi prince, in a remark designed to send chills through the Obama administration and its allies, suggested that the kingdom might consider producing nuclear weapons if it found itself between atomic arsenals in Iran and Israel.

The prince, Turki al-Faisal, who has served as the Saudi intelligence chief and as ambassador to the United States, made the comment on Monday at a Persian Gulf security forum in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The remark confirmed Western fears about the potential for an arms race in the Middle East if Iran moves to produce a nuclear weapon.

But it also reflected the hardening views among the Persian Gulf’s Arab states that they must rely on themselves — and not just on Western protection — as tensions with Iran grow worse.

Kuwaiti authorities are pressing ahead with several prosecutions against people accused of being Iranian spies, and Bahrain’s rulers contend that a cell linked to Iran sought to attack the Saudi Embassy.

Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates is close to finishing a pipeline that would carry oil directly to Indian Ocean shipping lanes, bypassing the choke point at the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has at times threatened to shut off to shipping.

In meetings last week, Arab envoys from the gulf agreed to study proposals to pool their military forces into a regional command, in an apparent reply to Iran’s expanding land and sea powers.
_________________________________

Walt clings to some mythological idea that the Iranians are really just moderates in wolf's clothing. He ignores the reality of a regime that not only confronted massive public rallies, but defeated them head on. There was no "Persian Spring" and Iran's ruling Mullah's have forced even Ahmadinejad to bend his knee. The Obama administration's pursuit of diplomacy was repeatedly rejected by Iran's government, and the idea that the US and the rest of the world should just - wait it out - is foolish beyond belief. Especially when other states are not.

While continuing to soft-pedal the risks of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, Walt runs screaming into the night with a series of "what if's".

Indeed, Walt's claims, that Iran's military projection capabilities are modest, fall flat when one looks at the Korean Penninsula. North Korea is a state that has been crippled by famine and a Stalinist / Personality Cult led government, that openly runs drugs, counterfitting rings, kidnaps Westerners, and has built its own nuclear weapon capability. Yet, this same basket case of a country mans a 1 million man army who's only ability to project force, is south, towards its Southern neighbor. No major force issue for the US there, and yet, successive American governments have pushed (unsuccessfully) for an end to its nuclear weapons capability.

Unfortunately, during this time, the North Koreans have peddled their capabilities as far as Pakistan (which expanded its own nuclear weapons sales program, to at least Libya) and Syria.

Walt also ignores the real concern in Israel about the ongoing threats from Iran to destroy the state and kill its people. Given the professor's animosity towards Jews in general, its not surprising that he underplays this real concern, but the US and European governments are well aware of how serious Israel's government treat's these threats and the very real possability of a nuclear arms race among Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, when hard-line Islamists appear to be gaining power.

Walt claims to know the mindset of Iran's government, a claim that is wafer thin on facts and loaded with his opinions. Over the past decade, Iran's government has had every opportunity to come clean from its own nuclear activities - it hasn't. Iran has had every opportunity to ratchett down the threat level to Israel - it hasn't.

At a certain point, if someone says they're going to come and kill you, you believe them. The Iranian people may be moderates, their government, is not.

I'd argue that aiding Isreal in protecting its citizens from attacks IS in our own interests. If, at the very least, to show that we support our allies. Could you imagine the effect it would have on us, from "all" our allies in the world, if we were to throw Isreal under the bus and not use all our powers to help protect them? No one would be able to trust that we would help and who would blame them. Chaos would ensue.

Whether you like it or not, the U.S. is a huge stabilizing power in the world and we cannot shy away from it. Isolationism won't work in a globalized world. Although many would like globalization to be a figment of imagination, it's here and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

I am still waiting for the explanation as to how our Constitution gives our government permission to roam the world telling other countries how to behave. Further, I am still waiting for the rational philosophy to describe how it is acceptable for one or more countries to tell another country what they can do.

It truly amazes me that intelligent people can be listened to, when they describe how the US has the right to tell Iran what Iran can do; especially when it is the US who has thousands of nuclear warheads telling Iran it can't have one.

And how people are able to claim the governments of Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and Israel are more irrational than that of Iran, and they all have nuclear weapons?

Where is the evidence that Iran will act in a more stupid fashion than our government; with its repeated assassinations of world leaders, invading other countries without cause (Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Panama, the Philippines, and numerous other Caribbean, Central American, and South American nations), and repeated acts of interference (Congo anyone?)?

And please be clear that all of this US blubber toward Iran is really based on their taking over our embassy in 1979; which, to me, was a minor infraction given what we have done to them in the previous thirty years (assassinating an elected prime minister; and assisting a dictator with weapons and intelligence and torture training to oppress the people of Iran).

My one objection to Walt is that he doesn't makes the provocative acts he admits we've been doing monstrous illegality.

"The third option is a sustained and patient effort to reengage with Iran, in order to convince Iranian leaders that they are better off not going nuclear and that both sides will be better off if we can gradually work out some of our differences. Such an approach does not require the United States to sacrifice any core interests, nor would it preclude continuing to press Iran on its human rights record and on other matters that trouble us. And maybe it won't work. But as Trita Parsi shows in his new book A Single Roll of the Dice, that alternative approach has never really been tried."

I can only assume that the author and Trita Parsi have been asleep for the last 30 years. From the end of the Hostage Crisis, every President has tried to "reengage with Iran", only to have the Iranians reject every effort. The ink was not even dry on the Algiers Accords when the Carter Administration broached the subject of reopening relations with Iran. Do you remember the "Iran" in "Iran Contra Affair". A misguided attempt to reach out to "moderates" in the Iranian Government.

The Obama Administration made engagement with Iran a cornerstone of its Middle East Policy, That it has been a demonstrable failure is the fault, purely and simply, of Iran.

From destabilizing Lebanon to killing our soldiers in Iraq, the Iranians have taken the war to us. The big "secret" to this war is the remarkable (perhaps naive) restraint that we have shown.

I fear that we will not have cordial relations until all major factions in Iran recognize that it is in Iran's interest to have those relations. Until that happens, the best we can do is ignore them when we can and confront them when we have to - which is exactly what we are trying to do.

I suggest you look up, "U.S. Foreign Policy- The Secret Wars Of The CIA" and find out the truth.

One simple fact that seems to be ignored is that the U.S. has consistently been at war with Irn from the day the Shah was ousted. As at today, the U.S. has far more troops and arms in the region than the entire Iranian Armed Forces and for the mpst part, the U.S. forces are arrayed against Iran. To cap it all, the U.S. has wittingly or unwittingly become an integral part of Sunni vs Shiah sectarian conflict.
Given this scenario, what would any rational nation do? The U.S. just has to accept that her policies in the region IS the root of the entire instability and all this for OIL which will still be and has to be sold tp the U.S. simply because it the largest single consumer of the commodity. many of us believe that even the Israeli question si just a convenient cober for U.S. quest for OIL and other commecial interests, it has nothiong to do with the much hyped Democrascy and Human Rights. Afterall ALL the dictators are still the best allies of the U.S. there.

including this covert war, seems likely to rapidly get out of control.

With exquisite timing, things could explode just as the US economy takes a solar plexus shot from the (inevitable, in my view) collapse of the EU. The rapid escalation of oil prices will impose a tax on top of all the other catastrophic effects of the second economic collapse.

If israel respons to a Hizbollah attack with nuclear weapons -- the larger powers will certainly get involved. One can imaging Tel Aviv and Tehran as fused glass, and radioactive fallout circling the globe and descending unpredictably.

The end or long period of dark-age like reality in the West seems also likely under these conditions.

These are the possibilites we're playing with.

Walt's piece assumes that the regime in Tehran thinks according to the dictates of his "realist" politics. If that assumption is wrong, the rest of his analysis is basically so much blather. "Realism" doesn't allow for a regime that thinks it can bring about the return of its Hidden Imam by causing devastating world chaos, but the Iranian regime has made clear that is what it seeks, however irrational that may seem to us.

But he also gets his facts wrong. As noted by DONQUIXOTE, the US has made repeated efforts to engage the Iranian regime over the last thirty years. Obama claimed he would do better than Bush by engaging with them, but Bush had made multiple efforts -- I saw somewhere that there were 28 such attempts in eight years -- with the same results as Obama's far fewer such efforts. That is because the Iranian regime has been at war with us since it took power and regards our efforts to engage them as so much very useful idiocy.

I certainly hope that "realism" doesn't expect that we will do nothing when we are under attack.

Contrary to what some respondents have written, the United States is not at war with Islam. Indeed, the 9/11 attacks came at the end of a decade in which US force was used primarily to assist Muslims, whether in Kosovo, Somalia, or elsewhere. This apparently counts for nothing with Muslims. Osama bin Laden at first blamed the attacks on the ongoing presence of US forces in the Muslim lands, but that was a consequence of our going to their assistance. If they don't understand the difference between a hostile and an assistive presence, then maybe we should reconsider further asistance to Muslims.

Dear NeoLeft,

You are, unfortunately, blinded by your own prejudice. Having served in both Iran and Iraq, my familiarity with these issues comes from more that a close reading of neoleft press reporting.

> From the end of the Hostage Crisis, every President has tried to "reengage with Iran", only to have the Iranians reject every effort.

>>That's if you choose to ignore the suplicity of those reengagements. Carter's efforts to re-open relations with Iran were not credible because Carter had been coddling the Shah for 4 years before the Iranian Revolution.

Carter is universally (and correctly) blamed for undercutting the Shah, leading to the success of the Iranian Revolution. Far from coddling the Shah, he showed him the door. Google "Gen. Huyser".

>> The Obama Administration made engagement with Iran a cornerstone of its Middle East Policy, That it has been a demonstrable failure is the fault, purely and simply, of Iran.

>>Rubbish. The Obama Administration made engagement included agressive behind the scenes efforts to undermine the Tehran leadership. While Obama gave his outreach speech to the people of Iran, US diplmats were fiercely lobbying to impose sanctions on Iran.

It's called a "carrot and stick approach". Sometimes it works and sometimes it don't. When your counterpart doesn't accept the carrot, all's he's left with is the stick.

>> From destabilizing Lebanon to killing our soldiers in Iraq, the Iranians have taken the war to us. The big "secret" to this war is the remarkable (perhaps naive) restraint that we have shown.

>>>There is no evidence of Iran killing any US troops in Iraq. In fact, it turns out that less than 1% of wepoans in Iraq even orginated from Iran.

As for restrint, the US has practically declared war with the sanctions imposed on Tehran. If Iran had imposed anything like what the US has done, we'd be declaring it an act of war.

Really? Are you that stupid? We found IEDs and EFPs with factory markings punched into them from Iranian plants. For the longest time the State Department suppressed the origin of these weapons for fear that we might upset the Iranians.

>> I fear that we will not have cordial relations until all major factions in Iran recognize that it is in Iran's interest to have those relations.

>>>They already tried in 2003, when Iran sent a memo to Washington known as the grand bargain. Iran offered to meet all Washington's demands for normalization of relations, and the Bush Administration not only rejected the offer, but abused the Swiss ambassadro for passing on the message (as he was required to do)

The "grand bargain" was a ruse by a small group of Iranians, doomed to failure because it did not have broad support amongst the ruling factions (along the lines of my quoted comment). It's main proponent in the US was - surprise, surprise - the self-aggrandizing Trita Parsi, former staffer for convicted felon Bob Ney. See: http://www.globalpolitician.com/23901-iran

- Quixote

The past experience of US in Iraq and presently in Afghanistan have shown that war is not the solution and can not bring desiring results, on the contrary it brings about of spreading hatred amongst the people even in US.
After spending billions of dollars now they are finding a way to talk with the same people whom they declared enemy. I think they will prefer not to impose war on Iran and that would be the right way to engage them in talks and solve the issues.

Logo Designer