Discuss & Debate

 
Current User: Guest Login Register Members
Please consider registering


Register? | Lost Your Password?

Search Forums:


 






Minimum search word length is 4 characters – Maximum search word length is 84 characters
Wildcard Usage:
*  matches any number of characters    %  matches exactly one character

Reply to Post Add a New Topic
UserPost

4:24 am
March 19, 2012


kalel

USA

Member

posts 364

How to handle Iran? Writing in The Washington Post, columnist Fareed Zakaria complains that “Krauthammer, the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and others denounce containment and deterrence and would lead us instead to a policy that culminates in a preventive war.” This summary of Heritage writings about dealing with the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran prompts a bit of head scratching—if Fareed actually reads anything Heritage writes.

First of all, if you click the link to “Heritage” in his blog post, it takes you to a speech given at Heritage by Michael Rubin. In fact, clearly on the page it states, “Michael Rubin, Ph.D., is a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.” Oops!

Zakaria might have linked to our most recent statement on how to deal with Iran, which rejects the notion of “preventive war.” Instead, the piece emphasizes all that can be done short of war to turn back Iran’s nuclear program. What the Heritage position does state is that in the end, the U.S. has the right to exercise its inherent right of self-defense, a right which belongs to any nation. That is very different from the concept of preventive war.

Now, Heritage has written in the past that containment might not work well for dealing with Iran. Guess Fareed missed that one. That paper goes to great length to explain how any strategy, including containment, has to be measured against the conditions faced at the time. What works in one case might not be appropriate in another.

Zakaria also glosses over the fact that nuclear deterrence is really only good for one thing—deterring nuclear war. In practice, since both sides have nuclear weapons, both sides find they can do a lot of mischief below the nuclear threshold—e.g., if Tehran really pulled off a terrorist attack inside the United States, would Washington nuke Tehran? Doubtful.

Does Fareed really think an already dangerous and aggressive Iran (see recent meddling in Azerbaijan) is going to be less dangerous parked under a nuclear umbrella? He should remember Mumbai. Would Pakistani intelligence have allowed the brutal assault on India to happen if they didn’t have a nuclear checkmate to keep India from whacking them back? Zakaria, be careful what you wish for.

Then there is the unmentioned issue of what happens if countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt decide they want their own nuclear deterrent against Iran. When we tested that proposition, we found that it was very hard to avoid conflict in a proliferated setting. Unlike deterrence in a classic standoff of us versus them, when several independent actors have nuclear weapons in a crisis (because you have to judge the actions of multiple independent actors at once), it is very hard to keep the peace. It winds up looking like six soccer teams on the field at the same time playing against each other.

Zakaria may think differently, but he has to do better than name-calling. Rather than throwing rocks, he ought to do his homework and then engage in a serious dialogue about how to deal with one of the world’s most dangerous nations.


Read original blog post

Reply to Post

Reply to Topic:
Does Fareed Read?

Guest Name (Required):

Guest Email (Required):

NOTE: New Posts are subject to administrator approval before being displayed

Smileys
Confused Cool Cry Embarassed Frown Kiss Laugh Smile Surprised Wink Yell
Post New Reply

Guest URL (required)

Math Required!
What is the sum of:
5 + 4
   


About the The Conservative Papers Forum

Forum Timezone: America/Los_Angeles

Most Users Ever Online: 47

Currently Online:
8 Guests

Currently Browsing this Topic:
1 Guest

Forum Stats:

Groups: 5
Forums: 25
Topics: 529
Posts: 517

Membership:

There are 4908 Members
There have been 7 Guests

There is 1 Admin

Top Posters:

kalel – 364

Recent New Members: nwksmdbz06, elkzupbc27, alwgmpcy54, olxlohhk87, qerppbcoxf, ireaptno80

Administrators: alpineski (14 Posts)



 
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (3 votes cast)
Discuss & Debate, 10.0 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

One Comments to “Discuss & Debate”

  • Roy says:

    Dear Ms Malkin,
    Please try and refrain from using the word ‘right’ when stating that you are conservative, but use the word ‘conservative’. Better yet, use Constitutionalist. The reason I think that you should refrain from using the word ‘right’ is that many folks have been brainwashed into believing that ‘right’ stands for Nazi. In reality, right connotates anarchy which leads to oligarchy (govt control). I wish that Hannity and others would try and get away from that word as well. Maybe you can use your persuasiveness to get the ball rolling on this issue.

    If you have a few minutes, please view this film by the Birch Society. It explains perfectly how various forms of governments have become mislabeled and their definitions skewed to confuse the masses about their own government. On a scale from left to right, it’s all about total govt control on the left and anarchy on the right. You may have seen the clip or know about it, but I think that it is one of the most informative clips ever. Just take about 10 minutes. That’s all I ask and hope that you agree with me on trying to get conservatives to stop using the word ‘right’.

    Thank you

    youtube.com/watch?v=2o0dWUhefqI

close
Facebook Iconfacebook like buttonYouTube IconSubscribe on YouTubeTwitter Icontwitter follow buttonVisit Our Pinterest PageVisit Our Pinterest PageVisit Our Pinterest Page