-
WAR OF IDEAS
Has the U.S. Reached Peak Car?
-
KILLER APPS
Cyberspies Are Using PRISM for Spearphishing
-
PASSPORT
Remembering Michael Hastings
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Friday, February 24, 2012 - 10:20 AM
Share
I'm pleased to present the following guest post from Nina Tannenwald of Brown University. Alert readers will note that she is writing from a constructivist rather than realist perspective, but when you're trying to avoid a foolish war, paradigmatic loyalty is a decidedly secondary consideration.
Nina Tannenwald writes:
At a time when anti-Iran hawks are beating the drums of war, the international community needs to pursue all possible routes to a peaceful solution to Iran's nuclear challenge. One route that has not been tried is harnessing moral and religious norms as a source of nuclear restraint. Incongruous as it may seem, Iran's leaders have repeatedly stated that nuclear weapons are "un-Islamic." Why not hold them to it?
Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa, a religious decree, in 2004, describing the use of nuclear weapons as "immoral." In a statement to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna in August 2005, the Iranian chief nuclear negotiator, Sirus Naseri, read a statement reiterating Khameini's fatwa that "the production, stockpiling, or use of nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam." Many regime figures have repeated the prohibition, including Khamanei himself, who said in 2010 that Islam considered weapons of mass destruction (WMD) "to be symbols of genocide and are, therefore, forbidden and considered to be haraam [forbidden in Islam]."
No other national leader anywhere has ever asserted that nuclear weapons are, say, "un-Christian" or "un-Jewish" (although Western religious leaders and scholars have expressed such views).
Iran's leaders could be dissembling, of course, as part of their effort to mislead the international community. But no one forced them to say this -- let alone to repeat it publicly -- and Khameini has not repudiated this fatwa even as Iran's nuclear program has advanced. It would be strange for a regime that derives its legitimacy from its adherence to Islam to keep asserting this point if it were really totally insincere.
We don't need to take the Iranians at face value, but why not take advantage of the opening their own words provide? The international community should capitalize on this element of restraint. We should hold them to it.
How might this work? Diplomats should refer to the statements approvingly and frequently. President Obama should use his rhetorical gifts to publicly acknowledge the Iranian prohibition and state that, as a person of faith himself, he respects and welcomes the testament. The goal would be to invoke Islamic moral values as a positive contribution to both Iranian and global nuclear restraint.
A second approach would involve "Track II" diplomacy. This would entail holding conferences that bring together religious scholars and ethicists from different religions, along with government officials and nuclear strategists from key countries to discuss ethical constraints on nuclear weapons. This would be a good project for foundations to support.
This strategy -- a normative one -- would not replace sanctions. Rather, by invoking Islam's moral contribution in a positive way, and by connecting it to longer term efforts toward global nuclear disarmament, it could help provide Iranian leaders with the political cover and respect to engage in negotiations over their nuclear program.
International relations scholars have a term for this kind of normative strategy: "rhetorical entrapment." Developed especially in constructivist analyses of human rights, it refers to how NGOs especially, but also states and international organizations, seek to hold leaders accountable to their publically-stated commitments to moral values or norms. Leaders can become "entrapped" in a public debate over their adherence. The act of holding the debate increases the salience and legitimacy of the norms at issue and thereby raises the legitimacy, or normative, costs to the regime of violating its own commitments.
Thus, in contrast to a realist strategy for dealing with a recalcitrant state, which emphasizes imposing material costs (sanctions, military threats), a constructivist strategy emphasizes raising the normative (legitimacy) costs of a violation. This approach assumes that leaders care about certain kinds of legitimacy (in this case, fidelity to Islam), just as the realist strategy assumes that states will be vulnerable to material sanctions and threats.
Is this normative approach to Iran pie-in-the-sky? Realists may snicker, but, historically, religious and moral norms have played an important role in shaping our thinking about nuclear weapons. Christian churches and other religious groups played a key role in the anti-nuclear weapons movements of the 1950s and 1980s. Their moral critique of nuclear weapons made it impossible to think of such a weapon as "just another weapon." Perhaps most prominent was the American Catholic bishops' influential 1982 pastoral letter criticizing nuclear deterrence as "morally flawed." This powerful statement provoked a widespread debate about the ethics of the nuclear arms race and helped undermine public support for aggressive nuclear strategies.
Iran has good reason to harbor a special revulsion toward weapons of mass destruction. It is the second largest victim of WMD attacks after Japan. Iran suffered over 100,000 casualties, both military and civilian, from Iraqi chemical weapons attacks during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Iran did not retaliate in kind partly because it was unprepared but also because Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini believed that chemical weapons were prohibited by Islam.
This experience deeply affected the national psyche of a generation of Iranians. Adding to the bitterness is the Iranian perception that the West was mostly indifferent to this suffering. Western countries quietly sided with Saddam Hussein in the war and failed to strongly condemn the chemical weapons attacks. Thus Iran surely has something to contribute to the global moral discourse on weapons of mass destruction.
The repressive Iranian regime is distasteful for reasons that go well beyond nuclear weapons, and no one who cares about the fate of the Middle East should want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Yet significant evidence suggests that Iranian leaders, while clearly determined to acquire a nuclear capability, have not yet made a decision to actually build a nuclear warhead. Invoking the value and worth of the Iranian regime's own publically-stated moral norms may help to reinforce more realist reasons for restraint, such as economic sanctions, military threats, or fears of provoking a nuclear arms race in the region.
Like anything else, this moral appeal may not work. But there is little to lose. To date, the key international players have shown a striking lack of diplomatic imagination in dealing with the Iranian challenge. Harnessing cultural and religious resources might facilitate a peaceful solution to this looming crisis and contribute to restraint on all sides. Of course, there is also the "boomerang" effect: engaging Iran in this conversation might require us to confront the status of our own moral values with respect to nuclear weapons.
Nina Tannenwald teaches international relations at Brown University. Her book, The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Nonuse of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945, received the 2009 Joseph Lepgold Prize.
Don Bacon has a point, but so has Ms Tannenwald
I am wondering why, as far as I know, no one else has put forward Ms Tannenwald's argument before. Too few theologians in the foreign policy business?
Anyway, Don Bacon may be right too, but Ms Tannenwald's idea is clearly worth a try.
The obstacle is perhaps that the hawks are fearing, or believing, that this argument could destroy what they consider their "casus belli".
"Alert readers will note that she is writing from a constructivist rather than realist perspective, but when you're trying to avoid a foolish war, paradigmatic loyalty is a decidedly secondary consideration."
I laughed - thanks.
A former student
with a religious regime is in its rationality and morality solely based on religion. An Ayatollah is more a religious head than a head of state. Can we expect rationality from a man who's judgement is based only on religious texts?
Now this is the rationality of Iran.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2011/march/iranian-regime-video-says-mahdi-is-near-/
Other examples of Iranian leadership rationality in political affairs are also illuminating. Iran opposed NATO in first Gulf war after fighting one of the bloodiest war's after ww2. Ahmedijiahd's rationality is in his genocide denial and alleged wiping out the Zionist state. And I am not referring to the alleged terrorist attacks or support to terrorist organizations which could be easily added to gauge the rationality of Iranian regime.
For Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's fatwa against weapons of mass destruction, an ayatollah can reverse the fatwa at any given time. The only problem is that the man who issues the fatwa can reverse it and Khamenei can do it if needed.
The Supreme leader didn't just issue a fatwa, he said nukes are incompatible with Islam, which is a much more permanent position.
Arguing the he could reverse the fatwa is a stupid argument. It's like arguing that the problem with men who don't beat their wives is that some of them might change their behavior and begin doing do.
Personal desire, age, and my health do not allow me to personally have a role in running the country after the fall of the current system." -- Interview with the Associated Press, Paris, November 7, 1978
"I have repeatedly said that neither my desire nor my age nor my position allows me to govern." -- Interview with the United Press, Paris, November 8, 1978
"I don't want to have the power or the government in my hand; I am not interested in personal power." -- Interview with The Guardian newspaper, Paris, November 16, 1978
These are the statements of Khomeini who was the cause celebre of BBC, CNN before Iranian revolution.
The supreme leader issued a fatwa, which said the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons was forbidden under Islam.Do you know what a fatwa is.
According to the usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), the fatw? must meet the following conditions in order to be valid:
The fatw? is in line with relevant legal proofs, deduced from Qur'anic verses and ahadith; provided the hadith was not later abrogated by Muhammad.
It is issued by a person (or a board) having due knowledge and sincerity of heart;
It is free from individual opportunism, and not depending on political servitude;
It is adequate with the needs of the contemporary world.
Where are nuclear weapons mentioned in holy book. This fatwa is the real false flag by the Iranians to deceive the world. Last time Iranian government was asked to reverse the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, they said that only the person who issued the fatwa is authorized to reverse it. This means that Ali Khomeini can reverse the fatwa at any given day.
The real matter may have nothing to do
with nuclear weapons. Shi'ites now face persecution in Yemen & Bahrain. Potential Persian desire to militarily assist Shi'ites concerns Sunni states, who want to rename the Persian gulf! Almost impossible would be Iran's not covertly assisting Shi'ites in neighboring countries with violence, Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Iraq. Unfortunately, Persian aid is not solely given to states with belligerents. Check this article from three days ago:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-21/azerbaijan-says-it-uncovered-terrorists-with-iran-lebanon-ties.html
Azerbaijan proves Islam compatible with values deemed Western. The constitution bears separation of powers & all manner of rights. GDP per person is on the rich side, > $8,000. Iran has no reason to believe Shi'ites oppressed; of the 95% of Azerbaijan that is Muslim, 85% is Shi'a. The map proves Azerbaijani instability worrisome; noisy activity neighboring a hibernating bear is parlous.
Iran’s Terrible Rationality (By Rich Lowry, NRO)
National Review Online
February 24, 2012
Iran’s Terrible Rationality
A highly ideological leadership with a sense of desperate urgency is the enemy of deterrence.
By Rich Lowry
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, thinks that Iran is a “rational actor.” He is indisputably correct.
Iran has, quite rationally, concluded that if it spins thousands of centrifuges to enrich enough uranium, it will soon have the bomb. Just as rationally, it believes it can string the West along. Then there is its airtight chain of cause and effect in the alleged plot against the Saudi ambassador to the United States: If it hired a Mexican drug gang, and that gang blew up a Washington, D.C., restaurant, and the Saudi ambassador was dining there at the time, the ambassador would die. Q.E.D.
General Dempsey said too little and too much about the Iranian regime. Tehran couldn’t have made itself into the world’s foremost exporter of terror and extended its tentacles throughout the Middle East without resorting to rational calculation. That’s obvious. What Dempsey is implying, though, is that a regime capable of such calculation can necessarily be deterred if it gets a nuclear weapon. That’s an unsupportable leap.
If there’s one thing we should have established beyond doubt during the past decade, it is that involvement in terror attacks on American soil is extremely costly to the perpetrators. Nonetheless, according to the U.S. government, the Iranians hatched a plot against the Saudi ambassador where the risk bore no relation whatsoever to the possible reward — from our perspective.
More fundamentally from our perspective, there is no point in establishing a theocracy, killing innocents abroad, pursuing sectarian war, crushing protesters, denying the Holocaust, and threatening Israel with annihilation, either. From the point of view of the Western liberal tradition, the Islamic Republic itself makes no sense. Yet there it is, withstanding punishing economic sanctions to pursue the weapon that the regime wouldn’t want in the first place if it accepted international norms.
If the Soviets, the famous “evil empire” bristling with thousands of nuclear weapons, could be deterred, why not Iran? The Soviet leadership became more pragmatic over time. After Nikita Khrushchev renounced Josef Stalin, it didn’t believe that war with its enemies was imminent and inevitable. Iran’s religio-ideological fire, in contrast, is still burning hot.
A highly ideological leadership with a sense of desperate urgency is the enemy of deterrence. In 1941, Dean Acheson rightly said: “No rational Japanese could believe an attack on us could result anything but disaster.” Except the Japanese — driven by a sense of honor alien to us — believed that they only had two choices: getting squeezed out of China by the U.S., or launching a risky war.
Even in the Cold War, deterrence almost failed. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the airstrike and invasion pushed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff might well have unwittingly prompted a nuclear exchange. The defense secretary at the time, the late Bob McNamara, maintained that “we lucked out.” Ah, yes, that crucial backstop to deterrence — luck.
The Israelis can be forgiven for not feeling very lucky. Do we think Israeli prime minister Bibi Netanyahu and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will establish a “red telephone” to smooth out misunderstandings after Iran goes nuclear? The Iranian regime is factionalized, and it is sure to be the most fanatical elements that control the nukes. It is also prone to bouts of popular unrest threatening its existence. If the regime ever believes it is going down, national martyrdom might look gloriously alluring.
In March 1945, Adolf Hitler gave his infamous Nero Decree, essentially calling for the destruction of Germany. After the first U.S. atomic attack on Hiroshima, the Japanese war minister mused about how wonderful it would be if his nation were destroyed “like a beautiful flower.” It is in this tradition that former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — a relative pragmatist — said that “even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”
On his own perverse terms, Rafsanjani’s reasoning is unassailable. He’s just another “rational actor.”
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2012 by King Features Syndicate
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291862/iran-s-terrible-rationality-rich-lowry
of Chinese & Russian interests.
Russian signals are contradictory:
http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/24/196796.html
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-24/putin-says-iran-nuclear-weapons-ability-would-risk-stability.html
Chinese signals are contradictory:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120223/as-china-iran/
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-02-21/china-buys-least-iran-crude-in-five-months-amid-price-talks.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/02/17/so-much-for-sanctions-china-iran-iron-out-oil-agreement/?mod=google_news_blog
Also, it just might be true that Iran's rival is acquiring its own bomb:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2105840/Never-mind-Iran-Saudi-Arabia-acquire-nuclear-bomb.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
If ever a time existed when all bets were off, it is now. Persian naval exercises were designed to provoke.
By the by, the notion of Persian insanity is absurd. When one person leads, insanity is possible (e.g., Kim Jong Il). Otherwise, a mass of persons determine policy in a way that must be to some degree rational.
It's a funny ol' thing, but....
.... I come here to read the articles written for Foreign Policy.
If I want to read articles written for National Review Online then.... I'd go to the National Review Online.
BKAPLOVITZ, why do you bother with these oh-so-tediously long posts?
Why not simply write a post that says: Rich Lowry has an interestingin take on this over at the National Review, it's well worth a read.
Then I'd decide wether - or not - I could be bothered to go over there and read it.
Congratulations on such a short post, AMOSYARKONI
Two sentences, surely a record for you.
And all your own words, which is also a record for you.
Brilliant! This'll work! Start having non-muslim Westerners—who after all have actually *used* weapons of mass destruction *and* who *still* refuse to give them up, and who are fresh from invading two other moslem countries and pummeling any number of others with drones and special forces and are currently engaged in glowering talk of attacking yet another—lecturing about how religiously forbidden it is for muslims to want any WMDs or to see any value in them.
Riiiight....
Geez, is there something about the air in the Academy that leads professors to believe that everyone else is just ... clay? Easily blinded by half-clever rhetorical brain-farts and thus easily and infinitely moldable?
And *this* is the quality of the instruction at the vaunted Brown, tutoring so many of our future elites?
God help us....
There is no Iranian nuclear weapons program. See:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/228014.html
And
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Supreme-Leader-Khamenei-Says-Islam-Opposes-Nuclear-Weapons-84771247.html
Does Professor Nina Tannenwald think that the NSC and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton do not know this? If nothing else, they have been informed by the NIEs of 2007 and 2011, after all. Let's get real.
The present conspiracy targeting Iran outdoes the Iraq fraud perpetrated by the Israel Lobby, the Neocons and assorted useful idiots like the aforementioned Rich Lowry and G.W. Bush himself. What we are witnessing is further proof that, at least with respect to foreign policy, Washington has been hijacked.
The raw political power of the Israel Lobby is stupefying. Both parties + almost all politicians are now under its control and need its support to be elected.
There will likely be no attack on Iran. The conspirators can wreck it with sanctions and via economic warfare, like they did to Iraq from 1990 through 2003 and beyond. That is the intention.
Tel Aviv threatens to attack Iran, using Tehran's (non-existent) nukes as the reason, to get Washington and the EU to impose further unwarranted sanctions and to further demonize Iran. But there is no military threat from Iran. It will only become a threat in the event it tries to defend itself from some crazy, pre-emptive attack.
Let's deal with some authentic problems, for a change.
Germanicus
==========
harnessing moral & religious norms as a source of restraint
QUESTION: One route that has not been tried is harnessing moral and religious norms as a source of nuclear restraint. Incongruous as it may seem, Iran's leaders have repeatedly stated that nuclear weapons are "un-Islamic." Why not hold them to it?
ANSWER: Because it's really about regime change and Western hegemony!
Iran has said it does not want nuclear weapons, and after years of innuendo and speculation, there is still ZERO evidence of any nuclear weapons in Iran, and our own intelligence agencies say there's no sign that Iran wants nuclear weapons...so what's the issue? This has always been about justifying a war for regime change, that's all.
Russia has been sending out conflicting signals. Here's the latest, with Mr. Putin talking about the danger, now, of Western intervention, warning (as if this were necessary) of the need for UN Security Council sanction:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/Iran-nuclear-threat-Vladimir-Putin-warns-West-not-to-meddle/articleshow/12051450.cms
The trouble is how to read things in the context of Syria, whose distress which inspires but few in the US to want intervention. Note that these article shows a Russian interest in Mr. Assad's longevity. The latter article is especially interesting because it shows some sort of bizarre cooperation between Syria, Iran, & Russia. Syria fascinates because it is an example of Shi'ite persecution of Sunnis! The Alawite Muslims are a branch of Shi'a Islam. 74% of Syrian Muslims are Sunni. Now the Sunni's have objected to Alawi hegemony since the first Assad took power. Interesting will be watching for recrudescence of the old enmities in the next few weeks.
http://www.bendbulletin.com/article/20120226/NEWS0107/202260385/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57378674/u.s-signals-concern-iran-russia-arming-syria/
There's definitely something happening. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons by themselves, but with a regional power shift. Possibly the Syrian Sunni's are being used by Iran to encourage better treatment of Shi'ites in Bahrain. Vital is not ignoring the signs of connection. By divorcing Syria from in Iran, people blind themselves to vital matters; also, while no one thinks that we should be mucking around in internal affairs of other countries much (they'll see how wonderful the effects on Libya this policy is), few would contest that inter-country affairs in the region are important to the US & to others as well.
Rusdua doesn't want to see military confrontations on it's borders. Nothing weird about that.
Dickerson3870 wrote:
"... it's really about regime change and Western hegemony!"
Very true, in addition to being about Iran totally rationally wanting to have a nuclear power generation capacity, as well as having some national pride which is a very interesting component.
It might, after all, be seen as somewhat odd that you have the neo-cons and etc. *and* strict realists like Walt agreeing about something so allegedly fundamental, which is the alleged centrality of Iran's ... realistic rationality, for want of a better term.
The neo-cons for instance are saying "sanctions will work!", and at the same time Walt is saying yes, nations behave due to realist—i.e. rational—motives primarily.
But to me at least I see a very large measure of Iranian pride involved here. Given that no-one even seems to claim that Iran isn't within its NPT rights, one can just imagine the mindset of its people being constantly told what they must do.
When you put it all together then, including Dickerson's excellent point that it's really about regime change, the situation is really just at an absolute impasse: Iran is not going to bow down and its regime is not going to commit hari-kari, and the West is going to continue going down the path of insisting on same but telling its citizens it's really about nuclear weapons.
What an ironic sham: We in the West always told that our free press and etc. let's us see things clearer and as they are, and the citizens everywhere *else* being buffaloed. And yet in this instance it seems it's the citizens of the West who are living in fantasyland and the objects of our ire seeing things more for what they are.
But it becomes about nuclear weapons if that's what the majority believes it to be because decisions and actions are made on the basis of that belief, and the fact that the belief was erroneous becomes a matter for historians.
The means proposed are not rational although the proposal to employ them is, in fact it derives from an excess of rationality quite as dangerous as none at all. What we are facing here is like one of those many levelled sandwiches compounded of alternate layers, in this case reason and unreason. We start with Dr Walt himself who quite obviously has it in for Iran. He has apparently never been there so can have no knowledge and must base his beliefs on ‘evidence’ that is at best second-hand, selective, and inevitably biased. As Don Bacon ably demonstrates, evidence must be questioned, you cannot simply accept it, that would be unscientific and, frankly, absurd; imagine a court approached evidence in that manner. So what is proposed here is for the US, fresh from an ‘accidental’ bonfire of copies of their holy book, to lecture Islamic religious authorities and their followers on the message the charred remains contained. Pull the other one!
The danger of these sandwiches is that they legitimise what they seek to subvert precisely by the implicit initial assumption of it’s existence. It is a variation of the Israeli passion for unending ‘negotiation’ over Palestine.
In Senate testimony on Jan. 31, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, stated explicitly that American officials believe that Iran is preserving its options for a nuclear weapon, but said there was no evidence that it had made a decision on making a concerted push to build a weapon. David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director, concurred with that view at the same hearing. Other senior United States officials, including Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have made similar statements in recent television appearances.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=1&hp
Russian TV reports that over 50% of US citizens believe Iran to be the US’ greatest threat and that it should be battered. If that statistic be true, then it would surely follow that there are many others who entertain similar but less extreme beliefs. If you seek to avoid a war it is those deluded beings who need Nina Tannenwald’s attention and that’s a tough one since, as someone (?) once said, men go mad in groups but recover singly.
its amazing and curious all at the same time how walt is obsessed with israel and how his cult like followers seemingly all carry a copy of the protocols of the eldars of zion in their hip pocket...
amazing...
harvard should be so proud.
hey steve, how much money are saudis giving to harvard? and why is this not publicized? bin walid al talal? giving a lot to harvard...gee, I wonder why?????
who came from harvard? obama, samantha power, walt... anyone see a trend???? I do.
Obsessions and their discontents
"its amazing and curious all at the same time how walt is obsessed with israel...."
A literal howler: Pin any word or number you wish on the amount of attention Walt pays to Israel—which, after all, is near daily inciting his country to go to war for it—and then see that word or number shrink into utter insignificance compared with the utterly fanatical, microscopically detailed amount of attention Israel pays to the United States and our officials, political figures and policies.
On any given day listen to the words of the top Israeli officials and see how impossible it is for them to not go telling the U.S. what it is doing wrong or right, in morally thundering tones no less. Or just glance at the Jerusalem Post on any given day and marvel at the percentage of stories devoted to condemning or praising this or that molecule of what's going on in the U.S., no matter how obscure.
But I guess it's anti-semitic to notice that Israel is plumping for a little thing like getting us into war with Iran. So especially in the upcoming week in March whatever you do, don't notice those innumerable AIPAC seminars—held every single year—openly advertising the prepping of their attendees to go door to door in Congress and demand this or that specific U.S. law or action, right down to the precise wording that our Congress should use in complying.
Perhaps the ultimate illustration of the hollowness of the rhetorical racket at work: Obsessively incite the U.S. into launching a war and otherwise massively supporting it, and then smear those U.S. citizens who notice and object for being anti-semites due to *their* allegedly being "obsessed."
Don't you just love being treated in this manner?
in·cite? ?[in-sahyt] Show IPA verb (used with object), -cit·ed, -cit·ing.
to stir, encourage, or urge on; stimulate or prompt to action: to incite a crowd to riot.
Wikileaks shows multiple Arab countries incited the US to attack Iran. The decision, irrespective of incitement, remains the responsibility of US government.
As you can see from this editorial, Israel does not believe Iran possesses a nuclear weapon:
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/iranian-threat-what-israel-really-thinks
[Re: Obsessions and their discontents] Not Quite & Not So Fast
From TNR.com
February 25, 2012
All of Western Civilization Could Soon Be Threatened By a Nuclear Iran
By Martin Peretz
I don’t know whether it’s time just yet for someone, anyone to bomb Iran. But it’s been quite a few years since the wise folk in the strategy profession have been saying “sanctions need time.” This sounds very reassuring unless, of course, Tehran’s nuclear option beats out Tehran’s financial collapse. Just how much economic pain will the world’s self-appointed moral monitors permit even a repellent and perilous Islamic power to endure until all the strings of conscience are played and the will to act is foreclosed. Before you know it, in fact, all of Western civilization will be in the dock … and all of Iran’s highly plausible threats and convincing menace will be right there about to be executed. Yes, make no mistake about who will be the first to be imperiled.
The Germans waited until January 1942 to detail at the Wannsee Conference their plans for the “final solution to the Jewish problem,” which was actually already in full swing. Looking back through the madcap film images of Nazis as Chaplinesque funny men, the nightmare has aspects of comedy. I suppose there is a parodic aspect to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s fulminations, what with the diminutive little man, his scruffy beard and open-collared white shirt, his formal dress, dining out at the National Council of Churches of Christ, addressing a special convocation convened by Lee Bollinger and lecturing at the Council on Foreign Relations. There is not much to lampoon in his boss, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose views on Israel are, if anything, more belligerent than those of Dr. A’jad and since he is actually supreme leader he should be taken seriously, much more seriously.
Now, of course, in Israel itself there is a plethora of views, some more hawkish than the mainstream, many (many more than you would think) less hawkish. And the same comparison can be made with the opinions of the cabinet which is also not at all monolithic. No one serious in this argument is completely predictable, except for Haaretz which is influential not because Israelis read its daily Hebrew edition—maybe 25,000 do—but because foreign correspondents are delighted to be confronted every morning with accusations against the Jewish state that somehow make the Holocaust less onerous to European souls. The Jerusalem Post is a somewhat more balanced but a suffusive religious undertone makes the skeptical reader feel he is always arguing with God. (As it happens, The Times of Israel is a new English language web daily created by the Post’s former editor, David Horovitz, a scrupulous journalist who had long chafed under his former owner’s whims.)
Th Times Of Israel
http://www.timesofisrael.com/
American military interlocutors are now publicly worrying that Israel does not have the capacity to cripple Iran’s nuclear designs on it. Is the inference that, if only it waited some more, the edge of the Israel Defense Forces over the Iranians would somehow increase? One principle of the IDF and, more important in a way, of the intrinsic Zionist idea is that Israel does not want, never wants American men and women to fight for it. That is why Israel is so irritatingly cautious about surrendering the whole West Bank (with half of Jerusalem) to capricious and weapons-wanton Palestinians. Ariel Sharon made that mistake already in Gaza, and the shelling of the Negev is its most dispiriting but lesson-teaching consequence. All the blather about 1967 cease-fire lines in just that … blather. A very tough regime of Israeli surveillance all over the West Bank and on its frontier with Jordan—how long do you think the peaceable kingdom will survive?—will have to be installed before Palestinian independence, so to speak, is attempted. (And that’s only if Arab Palestine isn’t like Egypt and Syria, which it might just be and as I am inclined to think it is destined to be. Alas.)
American military interlocutors are now publicly worrying:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/world/middleeast/iran-raid-seen-as-complex-task-for-israeli-military.html
That one principle of the IDF, that they actually fight their own battles, is inviolable and inviolate, words with slightly different meanings but one carrying the implication of sacred. And sacred it is. No American force has ever actually done battle for Israel. None. Neither Bibi Netanyahu nor Ehud Barak is about to relinquish that idea and that reality. They may want to borrow some refueling equipment. But they already have enormous numbers of bunker busters, as the best-informed military correspondent in Washington Eli Lake reported just a few days ago. I should note (humbly) that Barack Obama approved the sale of 55 of these 5,000-pound deep penetrators to the Israelis already in 2009, when he had only begun to dicker with them over settlements. These are not all that they have, since their own armaments industry has been producing thousands of lesser and slightly lesser capacity devices. If Israel cannot do it, believe me it won’t.
Lake:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/02/12/obama-s-dangerous-game-with-iran.html
So back to all the fretting in Washington. Do the heavy thinkers believe that Israel should just wait for Iran to have a certifiable atomic device capable of hitting any place in Israel? Hey, maybe the Israelis and we Zionists who worry about them should cross our fingers and hope.
I know that most of you don’t cotton to the editorials of the Wall Street Journal. Well, here’s one every responsible citizen should confront. It’s called “Containing Israel on Iran: General Dempsey Sends a Message of U.S. Weakness to Tehran.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203358704577235421949357032.html
P.S. I know that some of my readers (and maybe even most of them) do not judge arguments and articles I cite by their historic evidence or their logic but by whether their authors are good guys or bad. But let me try again. Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton is a certified bad guy, what with him having been George W.’s emissary to the fraudulent international debating society and, what’s more, doing lots of his writing, including this article, in The Washington Times. I challenge anybody to try to make hash of this piece. Ditto for Ilan Berman’s little essay in the same daily on the same day.
Bolton:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/22/irans-relentless-nuclear-quest/
Berman:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/22/irans-relentless-nuclear-quest-425301412/
P.P.S. Apropos my above reference to David Horovitz and his new e-paper The Times of Israel, Horovitz analyzed the prospects of an Israeli strike against Iran through the prism of Ehud Barak’s relationship with the prime minister, a fortunate bond for both and for the Jewish state primarily.
Horovitz: An Israeli Strike On Iran? Not So Fast.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/an-israeli-strike-on-iran-not-so-fast/
Martin Peretz is the editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic.
http://www.tnr.com/article/world/101108/western-civilization-threatened-nuclear-iran
Apropos an earlier comment of mine BKAPLOVITZ wrote:
"Not Quite & Not So Fast...."
Well I don't see that what you wrote/reproduced there undermined anything I said, but I agree that the Peretz piece you reproduced is a good one. Not that I agree with the overall thrust of it, but it's reasonably argued, makes some points, and well deserved to be noted here.
In addition I think it's especially valuable in evidencing that at least some of the people who see Iran getting nukes as being a threat to the entire world and not just Israel are not just saying this but genuinely believe same.
Once again I don't think this is all that valid, but it's hard to say it's entirely spurious given at the very least the concerns even the Europeans genuinely have about Iran's nukes.
The thing is, to me at least, is that at some point one has to concede that the world will change. Sure you can bomb Iran backwards somewhat, but even if that in and of itself doesn't convince it to get the Bomb eventually someone else will unless the fundamental dynamics of the ME situation change, and that just isn't being addressed by bombing Iran.
Once again then I just wish we'd see at least some attention paid by Israel to the idea of a Nuke-Free ME Accord, which Iran has already said it would abide by and which of course means agreeing to very extensive monitoring and inspection.
Clearly to *whatever* degree Iran getting nukes is a global problem it's more of a worry for Israel, just as any nukes in the hands of any of its neighbors are. So why not consider dumping its own nukes in exchange for utterly eliminating that threat to it very possibly forever?
Very short-sighted on Israel's part I think. Missing an opportunity to get rid of weapons it doesn't need, while disarming its potential enemies of the one weapon that it has to fear above all others.
Are you seriously quoting Peretz and John "bonkers" Bolton?
The Peretz article and the others don't even try to address whether Iran is producing
nikes. They simply assume it to be a fact and build their thesis from
that position.
Crazed lunatics.
The idea of trying to hold Iran to their "word" may sound good in theory, but I don't think it will work in practice. It might even backfire if we take them at their word, while they are busy reneging on it. What people have got to realize is that there is no real marriage relationship between Iran's religious and secular leaders. Therefore the Ayatollah can preach one thing and Amadinejad can do another. I wouldn't even take the Ayatollah at his word. He could easily find some justification for nuclear weapons being "Islamic".
There may be reason for military action but
nuclear warfare is not one of them. Not only would Iran's government avoid having millions of its people incinerated (remember, they ARE rational. Just check Press TV to see not everyone in Iran takes five hours to say three things the way Ahmadinejad does), but no one in US agencies sees a nuclear weapon in the near future.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/world/middleeast/us-agencies-see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html
Attacking Iran to prevent mushroom clouds when US agencies say there is no bomb is far more egregious than invading Iraq when US agencies said there were weapons of mass destruction.
My feeling is there's something else going on. What it is, we'll soon find out. To ignore very unusual things, such as Persian naval vessels crossing the Suez, is wanton ignorance.
Two groups need to pull their head. out of the sand.
The first group is constructivist scholars that think norms, religious edicts like the Catholic Bishop's or any of the other normative strategies actually mattered in the Cold War. Truman came ot the conclusion in 1950 that nukes were not like other weapons. It did not take a movement. And nothing the Catholic Bishops did or said had any affect on the MAD v. NUTS debate in the 80's. The mere existence of rhetoric by normative actors is not evidence that it mattered.
For those that argue that Iran has no weapons program and those who cite the 2007 NIE you need to learn to think and read. Botht he 2007 and the 2010 NIE say there is no HARD evidence, not no evidence. In the post 2003 world the CIA and others will not make WMD prediction with anything less than court-worthy evidence, which rarely exists in these cases. Additionally the 2007 NIE was able to claim no program because it redefined a weapons program to by enrichment, missile, and warhead programs going on simultaneously. This if either one occurs by itself, even sequentially, it would not count. They basically defines the issue out of existence. So even though we know enrichment is occurring beyond civilian needs and there is an active missile program, because we have not found irrefutable evidence of an active warhead program there is no program. Riiiight.
Add to this that even the IAEA has stated that Iran possesses more 20% enriched uranium that it needs for a research reactor for more than 10 years it is increasing enrichment capability ...in a very deep and very expensive underground bunker...we think but don't know because they will not let the IAEA in there and only discovered it once intell found it the secret in 2009.
If you really believe Iran is not positioning itself for nuclear capability then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you.
Now none of this means military action is necessary. I also believe it would be counterproductive. But seriously folks, you do not need to stick you head in the sand about the intentions of the Iranian regime or pretend in the magic power of norms to oppose a strike on Iran.
>> both he 2007 and the 2010 NIE say there is no HARD evidence, not no evidence.
False.
They say there is no evidence (hard or otherwise) and most importantly, all 16 US intelligence agencies have sufficient confidence in their investigations to conclude that Iran is not producing nukes.
Leon Panetta is so confident in these conclusions that he stated on Face The Nation that Iran is not producing nukes, not that there was no hard evidence. The Mossad, who's threshold would be far lower, agrees with both NIE's.
>> In the post 2003 world the CIA and others will not make WMD prediction with anything less than court-worthy evidence, which rarely exists in these cases.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Even if this were true for the CIA (only one of 16 US intelligence agencies involved in producing the NIE), Mossad are not limited by such constraints of court-worthiness, yet they have come to the same conclusion.
>> Additionally the 2007 NIE was able to claim no program because it redefined a weapons program to by enrichment, missile, and warhead programs going on simultaneously. This if either one occurs by itself, even sequentially, it would not count.
Now you're just making this up.
1. The NIE did not define a weapons program as enrichment, missile, and warhead programs. You're lying.
2. Enrichment is 100 % accounted for by the IAEA and had gone nowhere near nuclear warhead requirements. The fact that enrichment is taking place is not evidence of a weapoans program.
4. There is no evidence that Iran's missile designs are being made to accommodate nuclear warheads.
5. Where they these entirely separate programs are taking place sequentially or simultaneously is completely irrelevant.
>> even though we know enrichment is occurring beyond civilian needs and there is an active missile program, because we have not found irrefutable evidence of an active warhead program there is no program.
What evidence do you have that enrichment is taking place beyond civilian needs?
>> Add to this that even the IAEA has stated that Iran possesses more 20% enriched uranium that it needs for a research reactor for more than 10 years it is increasing enrichment capability ...in a very deep and very expensive underground bunker...we think but don't know because they will not let the IAEA in there and only discovered it once intell found it the secret in 2009.
Rubbish.
1. The bunker already existed because it was an existing military facility. Installing an enrichment facility underground is a lot cheaper than installing anti aircraft missile defenses and a lot more effective.
2. it was Olli Heononen not the IAEA that claimed that Iran possesses more 20% enriched uranium that it needs.
>> If you really believe Iran is not positioning itself for nuclear capability then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you.
Phrases like "positioning itself for nuclear capability" are just a vague and meaingless termss used for propaganda in the absence of evidence. There are 40 states thatcould be describes as being in a position for nuclear capability. The very fact that Iran is enriching could be intepretred as effectively positioning itself for nuclear capability.
The intentions of the Iranian regime have been explicutly detailed in the NIE's and even by Dempsey. The reason the Iranians were even considerign nukes prior to 2003 was because of the threat posed by Saddam. Once he was deposed, they closed the book on any aspirations.
The NIE's have also concluded that the Tehran leadership is pragmatic and realizes there is no point in develoing nukes because a handful of nukes are no possible challegnce to Israel or the US.
Machinations of an unpopular regime trying to hold on to power.
Iran is in a dilemma. On the one hand it wants to show the world all it’s got and put it at ease, while on the other hand it fears that such show 'n tell will give its enemies a roadmap to bomb it.
Saddam Hussein faced a similar dilemma ten years ago. Though he wanted the world to know he had nothing to hide, he also wanted to bluff his archenemy Iran into believing Iraq still had WMD.
Bluffing did not go well for Saddam, and it might not go well for Ahmadinejad.
But since the price tag for ridding Saddam proved high, we ought to reflect what we are asking of Iran now. On the eve of a threatened attack, we are asking it to take us to the depths of its arsenal and show us all it's got.
Such great expectations are a sign we have been talking to our friends too long and are in need of a broader perspective. Exactly when was the last time we asked Pakistan, India, China or Russia to show us their arsenal?
“But those countries are not advocating the destruction of Israel.”
True, but Israel is not a thorn on their side either.
Surely, however, we can see beyond the hyperboles and figure out their underlying purpose. Or have we forgotten that not all Iranians are thrilled with Ahmadinejad?
He sure hasn’t.
Nor has he forgotten that that his countrymen hate Israel even more. So he tells them that Israel will be wiped from the face of the earth. Expectantly, this nonsense unites them against a common enemy. It even becomes a diversion from the misery and isolation brought on by his anachronistic regime.
Quite clever work by Ahmadinejad -- and not a rial spent or a bullet fired.
So why are we letting the crazy talk about destroying Israel get us all worked-up -- to the point of turning the world topsy-turvy again.
Can we not plainly see the machinations of an unpopular regime trying to hold on to power?
Hezbollah and Venezuela thugs to put down a small demonstration?
And may I ask where you go this information from?
Yesterday, on the English language Russian TV station, I watched a pre-presidential election address given by Vladimir Vladimirovich in which he talked about, what non-US/EU people accept anyway, how the US is using the Iranian nuclear threat to cover their purpose of regime change He expressed a similar view of the US/NATO interference in Syria and insisted he would have no part of it. It is the Russian belief that the Syrian crisis has been fostered for some years by the US together with a few far from democratic Arab leaders who are even now arming and encouraging a variety of dissident groups, while Assad is all but ready with a new draft constitution shortly to be offered to Syrian citizens in a referendum. What is interesting is that it is necessary, even here, to identify the hot air surrounding Iran as an hegemonic issue, nothing to do with nuclear weapons, when large swathes of the rest of the world never thought otherwise.
Later, in a program on the effect sanctions are having on the Iranian people, a senior member of the Indian energy authority made it clear India would be having nothing to do with the US/EU Iranian oil embargo. It was, he said, something that concerned only the US/EU, they had not consulted India about it and he considered it their business entirely and nothing to do with India. I have heard elsewhere that to circumvent to the fiscal hurdles India may switch to pricing Iranian oil in rupees (or even gold of which the have plenty).
Having posted the above, I just turned on Chinese TV to see the Syrian referendum actually taking place with queues of voters calmly putting their slips in boxes. Two opposition parties apparently called for a boycott but Assad says they are the ones that refused dialogue. The results are expected tomorrow. Interesting to imagine Assad may yet finesse all this outside interference.
This entire Iranian nuclear brouhaha is a hoax and a setup. Why is the leadership of both political parties in Washington supporting it? That is the paramount question to answer. Can they really be that stupid and misinformed? What is the motivation? Figure that out. Everything else is secondary.
Germanicus
========
with religious animosities of all sorts. A good reason to not get involved in Syrian internal affairs is the absolute uncertainty of outcome. Heaven knows, the people there, all non-Jews, want to kill one another. It may well be that Mr. Assad is the only thing preventing civil war.
Perhaps it's something in the water
I mentioned the Russian TV to illustrate that other countries are not anti-American so much as head shakingly baffled by the US. China's CCTV just showed a senior US guy (I didn’t catch his name) out in Japan now trying to get ‘the six’ whoever they may be to organise a nuclear free Korean peninsula. Why, in the name of heaven, don’t they do that in the ME, which is much closer and quite as much, if not more, in need of it?
US foreign policy appears increasingly out of date. It is almost isolationist in its single minded self interest while one gets the impression that other nations, Russia and China particularly, now take a broader global perspective, which being more realistic is actually much better for their own interests. You get people asking if the US is losing its authority and the answer seems to be, No just throwing it away.
A good thought, but you know land has its value
Check this out to see that Russia may be worried about more than external problems here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/18/us-russia-chechnya-idUSTRE81H0KY20120218
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2932313.ece
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-bear-is-afraid-1.415004
Muslims in Kyrgystan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan are mostly Sunni. A desire to suppress restive Sunni's would correlate with support of a Shi'a regime in Syria that oppresses Sunnis in Syria. Although it may surprise some, Russia has not exactly been friendly to Muslims:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2044732,00.html
The suppression of Islam in Russia is the oppression of Sunni Muslims! Now here is a complete change in historical reality accomplished by Mr. Putin:
"Generally, the current developments in the Arab world are, in many ways, instructive. They show that a striving to introduce democracy by use of power can produce - and often does produce -contradictory results. They can produce forces that rise from the bottom, including religious extremists, who will strive to change the very direction of a country's development and the secular nature of a government.
Russia has always had good relations with the moderate representatives of Islam, whose world outlook was close to the traditions of Muslims in Russia. We are ready to develop these contacts further under the current conditions. We are interested in stepping up our political, trade and economic ties with all Arab countries, including those that, let me repeat, have gone through domestic upheaval. Moreover, I see real possibilities that will enable Russia to fully preserve its leading position in the Middle East, where we have always had many friends."
http://en.ria.ru/world/20120227/171547818.html
The determination of which Muslims are moderate sometimes depends on the person evaluating matters. Clearly, there are to Mr. Putin more "moderate" Shi'a than Sunni Muslims. Of relevance is that matters were reversed before the Russian Revolution. The suppression of Shia Islam is well described in this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=3TQR2R0rRq8C&pg=PA76&dq=Russia+Iran&hl=en&sa=X&ei=t_NKT4ymEdTCsQKL3_XqCA&ved=0CFIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Russia%20Iran&f=false
Nina's article is sensible for another reason
and that is it would show respect for Iranian culture and religion. That could go a long ways towards improving relations.
But as is noted repeatedly above, our policy is not driven by the nuclear weapons issue, rather it is driven by our need to control. Showing respect is the last thing our FP establishment wishes to do, they seek abject surrender.
For people who want to do something constructive for a peaceful outcome, showing some respect can't hurt and if enough joined in then maybe this march toward war can be derailed.
the mad mullahs are more than just ahmadinnerjacket...hell, moussavi, leader of the opposition and a supposed moderate is one of the fathers of the iranian nuclear weapons program.
hashemi rafsanjani's remarks in 2001 on nuclear weapons and their potential use...very illuminating...and he was supposed to be a moderate.
sorry fellas, iran with nukes is as obama himself said, unacceptable.
Have a great evening!
"hashemi rafsanjani's remarks in 2001 on nuclear weapons "
Hmmmmmmm, 2001.
Something about that date keeps nagging me...
What could it be...
What could it be...
Oh, yeah, that's right: 2001 comes before 2003, the latter being the year in which the US intelligence agencies insist the Iran's wound up any nuclear weapons program that they might have had.
lol johnboy...the 2007 nie was a useless political document.
It has been since proven to have been a totally useless document with zero merit, and besides, it doesn't change what rafsanjani said...so please, stop with the obfuscation.
"It has been since proven to have been a totally useless"
It would appear that the 2010 NIE disagrees with you on that point.
As, I will point out, does Panetta and Petraeus.
How odd, heh?
Thr latest NIE was in 2011 I believe.
Not only does the 2011 NIE agree with the 2007 NIE, but the Mossad agree with the conclusions.
Real realist doesn't seem to have much time for reality.
"is one of the fathers of the iranian nuclear weapons program."
What nuclear weapons program would that be, RR?
The one that the IAEA just can't actually manage to find, despite all of Amano's "concerns" regarding that possibility?
Or the one that Mossad has been completely unable to unmask, despite so much time, effort and forgery?
Or would it be the one that the combined US intelligence services keep insisting Does Not Exist since it was canned in 2003?
you're really too funny...what grade are you in btw?
they can't find it? hahaha....good one.
fordo? parchin? natanz? arak? oh I think they found it alright! Its amazing how some people will go to any length to deny the obvious. I think I will put my trust in the iaea now that it is run by someone honest who has no bias to give iran political cover. I will also trust men like heinonen over you johnboy...lol....
now go back to you little xbox and try to breathe through the nose ok?
"fordo? parchin? natanz? arak?"
You mention an iranian nuclear WEAPONS program.
"fordo?" Under constant IAEA inspection. No WEAPONS program there.
"natanz?" Ditto.
"arak?" Ditto.
"parchin?" Is a military base, it is not a nuclear facility.
Honestly, do you know *anything*????
Patch was inspected twice by the IAEA in 2005
So seeing as the allegations made by the IAEA about Parchin date back to ore 2003, there's no justification for the IAEA even requesting access to the site.
NEOLEFT, he's playing the usual bait'n'switch
RR accused Iran of having a nuclear WEAPONS program.
When he is challenged on that accusation he points to Iran's nuclear program as "proof".
It appears that he doesn't understand that a
"nuclear program"
is quite different to a
"nuclear WEAPONS program".
Which means that he also does not understand that the difference between those two is, indeed, the entire point of the NPT and the IAEA's role as the inspection agency for the NPT.
Or, in short: he is either being deliberately stupid or... he's stupid.
Take. Your. Pick.
The other explanation JohnBoy is
that he's a crazed Zionist who is desperate for a war with Iran, and will lie to get it.
It is all about the power politics around Iran's nuclear issue. Here I would agree with DON BACON, that US is actually worry about the single power in Middle East, who has its own power projection in its foreign policy inconsistent with that one promoted by US globally.
Nonetheless I very much appreciate reflections of Ms Tannenwald, who has indeed raised a new or at least very rarely touched aspect of a set of dealing options of Iran nuclear program. Putting forward a normative/moral approach against Iranian program by citing the official rhetoric of Iranian religious leadership would be useful for negotiation.
However, I think, raising moral issues during negotiations would not have much effect. Not surprisingly , that Iranians will not deny their commitments publicly-stated by the highest leadership about nuclear weapon being "un-islamic". Because they are seeking, as they repeatedly declared, for peace atom. And it is not "un-islamic", is it?
Any negotiation attempts seem to be non-starter as long as parties keep speaking different languages (peace atom vs. not-peace atom).
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(60)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE