This is the punchiest, most realistic summary of the Iranian situation as I've read, in forever. Finally a reason to come back here other than that you're a nice guy, Greg!

Now, drop a note, would you please, and tell me where I can read/find/know more of this guy?

Posted by: glasnost at June 6, 2006 12:54 AM | Permalink to this comment

However, just to stick a hole in this guy's tires as well, even though I like him, I should point out that while he's right re Russia and China, he doesn't mention Europe. Possibly fortunately, more likely unfortunately, I think it's at least 50/50 that Europe will support some degree of Iranian sanctions. The question is whether this is a net positive assuming that the sanctions will fail in thwarting nukes, so all you're left with is: will the net weakening of the resources of the state be worth its likely gains in political consolidation?

I'd said probably not, but it's at least a debatable question.

Posted by: glasnost at June 6, 2006 12:57 AM | Permalink to this comment

Glasnost: McCaffrey is an Andover man, so he can't be all bad! But, then again, so is Bush! :)

Posted by: greg at June 6, 2006 01:04 AM | Permalink to this comment

Gregory,

Do you have a source link?

Flap

Posted by: Flap at June 6, 2006 04:03 AM | Permalink to this comment

Flap

http://img.slate.com/media/57/AAR%20General%20McCaffrey%20Visit%20to%20Iraq%20April%202006%20USMA.pdf
http://www.slate.com/id/2141001/
http://www.tnr.com/blog/theplank?pid=16131

A tip, google "Barry McCaffrey" "They will not support another war"
or some such, basically the name in "" & a reasonably unique sentance :)

Nigel

Posted by: Nigel at June 6, 2006 05:43 AM | Permalink to this comment

McCaffrey's report, interesting and valuable though contradictory in a number of respects, was about Iraq.

He tacked on a couple of paragraphs about Iran at the end, no doubt correctly reporting nervousness among Gulf State leaders about administration rhetoric but talking right through his hat on the rest of it. His prescription for preemptive surrender on the nuclear issue to pave the way for building "asymmetrical alliances" is the kind of thing one says when one feels the need to propose a solution, any solution, to a problem rather than admit it is outside one's current scope.

The 98% of McCaffrey's report that concerns Iraq deserves to be read in full. Not that I agree with all of it; an uncharitable summary of his recommendations would be to maintain current troop levels for another 2-3 years and a massive mentoring program with the whole of the Iraqi government for about 10, or until the current generation of hopelessly ineffectual Iraqi political leaders dies of natural causes -- a slight exaggeration, this, but only a slight one. This and his comment about our bankrupting the Iranians prompts the thought that Mrs. McCaffrey is probably the one who handles his family's accounts. If that were not so the general might be a little more hesitant about assuming unlimited American resources for the Middle East into the indefinite future; in fact, we've borrowed what we spent on the Iraq war already.

It's the supporting facts in McCaffrey's piece that deserve study. One example: he backs up his remark that only the military and the CIA are at war with devastating details about how limited is the commitment of other federal agencies. I've been reading Dana Priest's "The Mission," an account of how the Clinton administration assigned more and more responsibility for nation building and other foreign policy tasks to the military as it let civilian agencies' role atrophy. Bush's administration hasn't just continued Clinton's policy, it has accelerated it.

McCaffrey also reports growing disenchantment among military personnel with the American media, and presents a more complex picture of the Iraqi armed forces and police than we are used to getting. He rightly traces some of Iraq's problems organizing a government and society back to the extraordinary trauma of Saddam Hussein's rule. Overall McCaffrey is more optimistic than I am, but is not blindly so. His reporting should be considered carefully.

Posted by: Zathras at June 6, 2006 06:41 AM | Permalink to this comment

We can bankrupt and isolate the Iranians as we did the Soviet Union and create a stronger Gulf Alliance that will effectively deter this menace to our security.

Not a chance - the world wants to buy Iranian oil. And anyway, Iran's been under a non-oil embargo for 25yrs so its economy has adjusted. Also, I shudder to think about the consequences of a nuclear armed bankrupt state with nothing to lose (Imagine if NK really had nukes!).

How about this for a novel idea - we make peace with Iran? George could fly to Tehran, shake the Ayatollah's hand and say, "We'll forgive you for the embassy hostages, if you'll forgive us for the coup, the Shah, his secret police, helping saddam invade you and imposing a 25yr world embargo". "Lets put it all behind us..."

Then sit back and watch the development of a large middle class who are more interested in buying the latest model flat screen TV than they are in nuking their neighbours.

Posted by: Stephen at June 6, 2006 06:53 AM | Permalink to this comment

"They have no integrated missile and interceptor air defense. They have no credible maritime coastal defense system to protect their ports and oil production facilities. Our Mid-East allies believe correctly that they are ill-equipped to deal with Iranian strikes to close the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea."

Hmmm, since the Tanker Wars in the 80's you'd think they would find some allies or buy some weaponry to defend themselves...oh, they did...it's called the US Navy.

Now, I agree with most of what he is saying, except you are not going to bankrupt the Iranians. At most they will face a few years of sanctions and we will blamed for the dying children, etc.

As for Stephen's argument that all we need is a leader to fly over and apologize and everyone will become happy, happy people, why didn't Clinton do this? Sounds like his sort of gig. (Okay, he did have Albright make a quasi-apology) How come it's never the Iranians flying over to the USA and apologizing for calling us the Great Satan, and allowing our young boys to stop manning missile silos as the Iranian nukes are thrown into the sea by peace-loving mullahs....etc., etc.

Kidding aside, the policy of "live and let live" for new nuclear weapon states and ignoring the NPT will have consequences, and will have a price to pay. Which is fine, as long as we recognize this.

It's probably like putting spilt milk back in the bottle anyways. Let's make sure our industry gets its proper cut as Iraq, Bahrain, Saudis, and everyone else start shopping for their nuke weapons programs. (because would you trust the USA as your last line of defense.)

Posted by: Aaron at June 6, 2006 10:22 AM | Permalink to this comment

"Now is the time for us to create the asymmetrical alliances and defensive capabilities to hedge the Iranian nuclear threat without pre-emptive warfare."

Now, be honest: how many of you were against ABM research back in the cold war fearing it would jump start an amrs race with the USSR and hurt arms control negotiations...

Posted by: Aaron at June 6, 2006 10:24 AM | Permalink to this comment

it's somewhat interesting to see zathras, seemingly eager to see us preemptively retreat from Iraq, ominously warn us to avoid doing same w/ Iran.

Posted by: greg at June 6, 2006 12:33 PM | Permalink to this comment

yes, excellent summation by McCaffery. There is no way to 'solve' Iran crisis. Negotiations will always end up leaving Iran in the driver's seat no matter how promising terms may seem and a tough approach will never be supported by China and Russia. One tends to then lean towards military options but McCaffery rightly points out that's no solution at all and obscures the ultra realist scenario he posits.

Posted by: saintsimon at June 6, 2006 12:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

Barry McCaffrey is Neville Chamberlain!

Posted by: SuperToughLiberalWithAFrown at June 6, 2006 01:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

Kidding aside, the policy of "live and let live" for new nuclear weapon states and ignoring the NPT will have consequences, and will have a price to pay. Which is fine, as long as we recognize this.

Agreed. I believe that nonproliferation is dead. and it won't be resurrected until there is a nuclear war and the world sees the consequences. The USA will be better off if we do not participate in that war. But the less isolationist we are, tye less choice we'll have.

I don't think we can put the toothpaste back in the tube by attacking one nascent nucler state after another. For iraq it was politically necessary to attack -- once the idea was seriously proposed there was no way to back down without losing votes. But iran is likely to be different, I'm not clear there are any political benefits from attacking iran.

We got a good 50+ years out of nonproliferation, it was fun while it lasted. It was a highly successful policy in its time. Now we have to live with a new world disorder and there isn't much we can do about it except adapt.

Posted by: J Thomas at June 6, 2006 02:35 PM | Permalink to this comment

"Now, be honest: how many of you were against ABM research back in the cold war fearing it would jump start an amrs race with the USSR and hurt arms control negotiations..."

Posted by: Aaron

Considering that, after $60 billion, we'd still have to have the Iranians launch their missile (singular) in good weather, with a radio beacon on the warhead, and no decoys worthy of the name...

Posted by: Barry at June 7, 2006 06:34 PM | Permalink to this comment

Anybody still believe in Eisenhower's Domino Theory ?..Let's see now...Iran gets their nukes, drops a few on Iraq and captures that war-torn country, then forms an alliance with Syria, isolates Jordan and then the Iran-Iraq-Syria Axis takes over Saudi Arabia and the U.A. E.,,,,can't happen ?...yes it can !

So we had better get our ducks in a row, put some iron in our lukewarm Middle East allies backbones and prop them up and tell them they had better fight like the dickens or they will lose everything.

Russia and China will just stand by and pick up the spoils- they will have the oil deals with the new Mid-East Axis Oil Cartel and will slowly choke off the West, or at least make it so expensive that they bankrupt the west including Europe, the UK and the USA.

Asymettrical alliances ?...we had better have them because waiting for the Rissuans and their Iranian allies is totally unacceptable- that is like fiddling while Rome burns. We do not have the luxury of time anymore. Give Iran 1 year or less and Iran's leaders will
make good on their promise to wipe Israel off the planet, which would be the start of WW III...

Yessir.....I still Like Ike

Posted by: I Like Ike at June 10, 2006 06:16 PM | Permalink to this comment

Not a peep from either McCaffrey or Greg on the obvious REAL danger from a nuclear Iran: what happens to its nuclear arsenal when the current regime finally collapses, quite possibly violently and chaotically -- or when the current government gets desperate enough to avoid a violent revolution that they try to use their nuclear arsenal to stick up their neighbors. (We were incredibly lucky in this respect where the USSR was concerned; we won't be so lucky many more times.) Which is why using the US military to prevent further genuine nuclear proliferation among dictatorships and shaky states, including Iran -- and to deal with likely near-future crises stemming from such nations that already possess it, specifically North Korea and Pakistan -- is infinitely more important than using it to try to keep stabilizing Iraq, and why this was always by far the most important argument for staying out of Iraq.

Posted by: BruceMoomaw at June 12, 2006 09:21 AM | Permalink to this comment