Focus U.S.A. / 'The U.S. will have to confront Iran or give up the Middle East'
Amitai Etzioni, professor of International Relations at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., believes the only option available to contain Iran's atomic ambitions is a series of assaults on its non-nuclear facilities.
By Natasha Mozgovaya Tags: Israel news Israel US Iran Iran nuclearAmitai Etzioni, professor of International Relations at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., believes the only option available to contain Iran's atomic ambitions is a series of assaults on its non-nuclear facilities. He maintains that President Obama's attempts at dialogue have failed, and drastic steps must be taken to prevent the U.S. losing its Middle East dominance to Tehran.
Writing in the U.S. Army's "Military Review" journal, Etzioni lists four possible responses to Iran's nuclear program - engagement, sanctions, military strikes and deterrence. He concludes that engagement has failed, sanctions are not likely to work, military strikes on Iran's suspected nuclear sites are unlikely to be effective either and might only delay the program (Defense Secretary Robert Gates believes this would probably be by one to three years), and deterrence works with rational actors, but it’s a gamble to rely on it with non-rational actors. This, he hypothesizes, leaves strikes on Iranian infrastructure that is not necessarily related to its nuclear program.
Speaking to Haaretz on Wednesday, Etzioni concedes that such a move could be interpreted by Iran as a declaration of full-scale war.
“That’s a fair point," he says, "but what’s the alternative? The best way will be to sit at the table and solve all our problems peacefully. I was in war, I was in the Palmach [the pre-state Jewish fighting units that became the basis for the Israel Defense Forces], and I don’t like shooting anybody. It comes to the declaration that there are no other alternatives. Sanctions are not going to work, everybody knows that. Assuming that if they have nuclear weapons we are going to contain them – it’s a very risky assumption.”
This option is not mentioned in the mainstream discourse.
“But it was published in the official U.S. army publication as a cover story. It says something, no? It’s not simply what a professor says. I agree that the White House is far from it, but somebody considered it worth discussing. You must assume that the military option covers several options”.
One of the strategic assets of Israel today vis-à-vis Iran is the fact that the Arab countries are on its side. Wouldn't that vanish in the event of such an attack?
“We do not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon and there is no way you can damage nuclear sites sufficiently by attacking them. There is only one alternative left. I should hasten to add – it’s not a policy Israel has to follow, it’s a policy the U.S. can follow because there are too many missions involved. Some people say Israel should do it and then the U.S. can enter under the excuse that it’s its ally, and some people think coalition is better. Coalition is always better, but in this case it’s very unlikely that many other nations would like to join the Administration.
 |
Professor of International Relations Amitai Etzioni |
What’s happening in the Middle East is that the countries are assuming that the U.S. is going to fold and retreat. It’s obviously going to get out of Iraq. The Pakistanis are very suspicious of the US commitments. Syria is moving toward Iran, Turkey is moving toward Iran. So the underlying text in the Middle East is that the next superpower in the Middle East is Iran. So even if you for a moment put aside the nuclear issue – to keep the U.S. credibility to protects its resources and oil, the issue will not be settled in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will finally come down to the confrontation between the U.S. and Iran. So maybe the U.S. should get out of Afghanistan, because it’s not the real war anymore. But if the U.S. is going to let Iran to become a nuclear power – all the other countries, including the Sunni ones, will run to it. The U.S. will have to confront Iran or give up the Middle East”.
So the hope that the Iranian opposition might still bring an inner change is lost?
“I think by now the tyrannical regime succeeded in suppressing the opposition. And another point - I was their guest in Iran in 2002, of the Center for Dialogue Among Civilizations. And I met many leaders in this movement. They were the first to start the nuclear program. They are against religious domination, but there is not a slightest hint that they will stop the nuclear program if they come back to power. Democracy might be wonderful, but even though they are anti-clerical, they are very nationalistic.”
We have the cliché that the clock is ticking. What kind of timetable did you assume while writing this article?
“I don’t have any other information than everybody else has. But there is a rule in decision making – it’s extremely simplistic but very true – it’s better be safe than sorry. So if the option is to hit them one month too early or 10 days after they have a nuclear weapon – I’d rather take the first option. And obviously there is not much time left”.
President Obama offered to the world dialogue as a new paradigm, wouldn’t it shatter this premise?
“The time for engagement has run out. Obama tried it, offered to meet them any time, any place, with no conditions – and they spit in his face. So it’s not going anyplace, it’s not working. The Arab world is moving away from him, Turkey is moving away from him. The notion of engagement and turning another cheek is a wonderful idea, it’s just not working.”
But the damage of throwing it away after a year and a half might cause more damage and erase any credibility left. Then going back to torture sounds fine as well.
“It’s a good point. They should never torture and of course they shouldn’t go back to business as usual. But you cannot conduct international relations [on] goodwill only. And Iran is a very good test of that. Maybe 50 years from now this strategy will win, but in the short term it’s giving up on the Middle East. The U.S. army is exhausted and overstretched, that’s why I think they should get out of Afghanistan. And second, I think it’s an air force job and not an army job. There should be no boots on the ground”.
That’s what the Israeli high command thought at the beginning of the second war in Lebanon - that they could bomb some strategic sites and Hezbollah would fold. It didn’t happen.
“True, there are many studies showing that the air attacks are not as effective as people think they are. But we always come back to the question - if we might try and fail, should we not try? We are talking about the U.S. credibility as an international power. People might think: Iran is not going to attack the U.S., so let them create the bomb and if they get nasty we will drop a nuclear bomb on them. That is a logical position. But you cannot remain in the Middle East as a superpower unless you deal with Iran one way or another.”
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
IDF should carefully reconsider all its targeting options and ensure not a single offensive weapon is defeated or caught sitting on its launch platform.
Why should the USA dominate the Middle East? Why is the USA dominating the Middle East? Is it still on it old colonial footsteps? If that is the case then the people of the Middle East got the right to try their best to evict it from the Middle East. Dominating other nations is wrong and criminal; you must be a friend and not a domineering country.
Like in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia (and Gaza, Lebanon...) It is just about spending money !
I dont understand, how u may think the Arabs are on Israel side!!. Israel its self has nuclear weapons aimed at the Arabs Iran Developing its nuclear programing beyond civilian use, is worrying, but more worrying is were are the Arabs in all this? One must not blame his opposit for his own failures.
He is clearly and Israeli masquerading as an American "thinker" nothing any other Israel firster hasn't wished for before. Hillary Clinton said it as early as last month as did Barak before that Iran is not a strategic threat
Some 46 year ago, in Berkeley, I heard Professor Etzioni explain the American crises in Viet Nam, more or less, thus: "The Americans have X dollars and other assets; they do not have X+1. Given that there is a limit to American action and influence, the government must make choices.between what is important and what is not." Given that the USA is involved heavily in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, an that he is under heavy fire in several sectors of domestic policy, is it realistic to expect the USA to go head to head with Iran?
There is a saying in America...you can not beat a dead horse over and over, just like Vietnam America has lost its way again, and never learn its not as great or powerful as it thinks it is. History does repeat itself...there is no honor in being the world fool.
When are these Zionist agents going to stop trying to drag the US into yet another war? Aggressive war is a crime, and that is what Etzioni is calling for, and rest assured, not for the benefit of ordinary Americans, but for a nasty little ethnostate with which the US has little in the way of common interests.
This deluded psuedo-intllectual means what he says - a huge problem for US citizens who expect a decent national health care and education program instead of more trillions down the Israeli sewer. There is no mention of an expectation that Iran would attack Israel. It's just trillions for Israeli regional power to continue its pathological militarism. Why should we Yankees pay for this insane mission?
There is an enormous disconnect between the "collaborationist" regimes (sometimes called the "moderate" Arab states) and their people. Obama's Cairo speech ignited a small ray of hope that has now been quashed. Without a just peace with the Palestinians, nothing is possible. With this peace, a wind of change will blow through the entire region. Unfortunately, when this factor is removed from the dialogue, we are left with the recommendations of Etzioni type madmen.
Give up the Middle East? America is talking and making decisions like they own the world and decides for everyone else what they can and can not do or have and how they can and can not live their lives. This shows how ignorant the American government and it's citizens are.
Dr. Etzioni is one of the very few American international affairs experts who understands the fundamental threat of Iran to world peace. Now that the US has deep-sixed General McChrystal, the US should deep-six Afghanistan, join arms with Israel, and take all appropriate steps to neutralize Iran's nuclear aspirations.
On Israel and win back the Middle East is what we need to do. Israel will never befriend Middle East countries with its warmongering. We need to support and befriend the Middle Eastern states before they lose all confidence and go towards the fanatical side in moderate countries. We must abandon Israel and its violence towards its neighbors. We will never be safe if we do not.
This is a wonderful opinion. The things mentioned are unanimous and needs to be appreciated by everyone. ------------------------- Mens Health Blog
It would be more beneficial for the US to give up Iran, confront Israel and secure the Middles East. Iran has not been at war for 62 years or displacced millions of people to accommodate Zionists in the New Israel.
can i be told what should make de world fear iran.they have never invaded another country,never used WMD's.I think America is more dangerous to the world than Iran.Causing tension in Asia,middle east and every where.If any nation feel threatened, there is only one insurance cover(the N. bomb).
This raises an excellent point. Iran hasn't been aggressively oriented since the eighteenth century. She's only a threat if she feels cornered. So cornering her isn't much of a plan.
The option of simply letting Iran get nuclear weapons was not discussed at all. Why was that?
This guy is nuts. He may be a professor, but has no clue about the US military and how already stretched it is. Find somebody else. Or maybe Israel should learn to negotiate with its adversaries.
Etzioni dismisses the Iranian leaders as ‘non-rational actors’, but never even considers their very rational motives for wanting nuclear arms: They, as everyone else, noticed that while Iraq was thoroughly destroyed in a naively well-meant, but nevertheless disastrous war, Pakistan (which is more involved in supporting Al Qaeda than Iraq ever was) is left alone. Also, countries often aspire to having nuclear arms when their rivals have them. But that aspect cannot be mentioned by man of reason Etzioni of course, because we all have to pretend that Israel's nuclear arsenal is A irrelevant, and B does not exist anyway. (Israel is so attached to this 'rational' policy that a man was put in 11 years of solitary confinement for attacking it.) Part of what Ahmadinejad does is just grandstanding: He has not enriched uranium to more than 20% (which Iran is allowed to do), but he just loves to rub in the double standard concerning nuclear arms in the Middle East, and the compromise worked out by Turkey and Brazil gave him the satisfaction of not having to grovel to the West. Is that so bad? I understand that complete submission is more satisfying to rational thinker Etzioni. But to start bombing out of hand, even though this would be completely illegal, and would only make things escalate, smacks of the behavior of a frustrated little boy, who simply wants to lash out, no matter what the consequences. God save us from ‘rational’ thinkers like Etzioni.
Good Comment
They must and will be stopped.
The Americans will not have to give up the Middle East as they actually did so already. This picture will become clearer in the very near future.
"Etzioni concedes that such a move could be interpreted by Iran as a declaration of full-scale war." I'd have to say that anyone who DOESN'T recognize that such an action amounts to "full-scale war" is not demonstrating any signs of being a "rational actor". Methinks that Etzioni is attempting to describe Iran without realizing that he is actually looking in the mirror.....
What does he mean by "USA give up the Middle East?" When the hell did the USA own any of the Middle East that it could give it up? This really stupid comment just demonstrates this perception that the USA has any right to be involved in matters far from its own territory. What Iran does is NOT the business of the USA and until the Americans learn that they have no right interfering in affairs that are not their concern, the sooner we might have some peace instead of the incessant warmongering by the USA.
Congratulations professor, on such wise deductive logic... which leads you to a conclusion that you couldn't possibly have been predisposed to conclude. It must be with heavy heart that you would persuade fellow Americans that this is the only possible course of action. I know this might sound heretical to you, but in so quickly dismissing the Iranians as irrational actors, (thus too risky to play the Mutual Assured Destruction game), can you point to any actions that the Iranian leaders have taken that you would categorize as irrational? (And I do mean ACTIONS, and not just rhetoric which may or may not be reported/interpreted correctly, or in context for our sensitive ears -- for there are many Israeli politicians that would fail that test) To make it easier for you, let me cite a couple of examples of actions that would qualify as irrational behavior in my book: (a) North Korea sinking a South Korean ship in an unprovoked attack, out of the blue... Or (b) North Korea illegally boarding, attacking and killing civilians on an unarmed aid ship in international waters --- oops, strike that, my mistake. Too obvious. It is increasingly looking like Israeli leaders are acting irrationally, and the world should really be wondering: can Israel be trusted with atomic bombs?
A fly, if she hatches on a sunny day will say after death that the world is sunny, if born on rainy day, she would say that is rainy, in the same way Israel can say that Iran imperils the Middle East if USA does not act soon, and I agree, but we must realize that USA is only one day for the fly. USA will not be forever, much less as the only super power able to project power far away regardless of the consequences. The control that the Diaspora exerts in USA may decline as well when things start going less satisfactorily than after WW II, or if someone open his eyes and realize what is happening, as McChrystal Et Al are smelling. Some other potential super powers might threaten USA in a much more scary fashion than Iran (Russia, China, Japan, etc). Summarizing, the author is hundred percent correct, Israel survives ONLY due to USA’s unchecked military power, otherwise it is an oxymoron; thus, it is a mere matter of time for the problem to resolve itself.
1) All Sunni-States running to America if Iran becomes nuclear? Hardly so, because the Sunni states have the potential Sunni Pakistani nuclear umbrellah IF needed. And it is not needed: A'Jad and Nasrallah--both Shia--were the most popular leaders in the Muslim world right after the Israel-Hizbollah war in 2006. You guys believe in your own propaganda too much. Not good. 2) You start bombing Iranian bridges etc and what will they do: If Hizbollah can shut down Israeli northern 3rd for weeks then Syria, Gaza, and Lebanon backed DIRECTLY by Iran this time can shut down the whole Israel for months. Just think through what is going to happen to the Israeli infrastructure, its tourism industry, its morale, its international standing (whatever is left now) 3) Turkey is NOT moving toward Iran. Turkey wants 'zero problem' borders and is trade benefits are enormous too. But, boy, you Israelis pray that Turkey does not join Iran! It is not in Turkey's own interest to have a nuclear Iran, by the way. 4) Make peace before it is too late. Israelis belong in the Middle East--and not in Europe. Learn to be part of the Middle East. Looks like even your own FM Lieberman, through his 'Blueprint' article today in Jpost.com, is starting to make some sense. This interview shows moral and intellectual bankruptcy of a nice, smiling face who is, deep down, a very bigoted person.
Obama is a monumental failure with anything he attempts. His job approval with and confidence among American people is going lower very week. He will soon realize that the only way out of this tailspin is to bomb the crap out of Iran. Not that he wants to do it but he will have no choice.
And you teach others? I'm speechless!
And you teach others? I'm speechless!
Amitai Etzioni, an Israely, writes an article in the US Army publication promoting wider bombing of Iran by US. Isn't that just too self serving? Does he think of the consequences to US? US is hanging by some treads and a war with Iran will push it over the cliff. An Israely may not give a damn but we do. Israel, fight your own wars and leave us lone. If US could deal with USSR who was 1000 times stronger than Iran it can deal with an Iran that might have, one day, a few bombs. Mike
Your analysis ignores the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons. That aside, your postulation for the zero sum foreign policy in the Middle East misses the point of containment. Nuclear Iran acts as a check against nuclear Israel; unless you would have else believe Israel's undeclared atomic arsenal is pure phantom.
Iran has enough uranium for 4 nukes using 1940s designs but possible 12 nukes using latest designs. Iran's new reactor goes online in August, so by the end of this year Iran will become a nuclear power on paper at least.
Invasion on a foreign soil is anything but easy and we are talking about a country that easy. No matter what kind of technological superiority you have your economy will hit hard and sooner or later you would have to retreat.
Peres, you not alone.
If Israel and the US really think, they are going to win a war against Iran only with the airforce, then the days of dominance in the region for both Israel and the US are counted. What's going to happen is this, they will attack Iran, then Iran will cover Israel with long-range missiles. After that, Syria and Hezbollah are going to attack Israel. Following this, Iran will set ablaze all the oilfields in the region. In the end, hundreds of thousands of Iranians, Syrians, Lebanese, Israelis, Americans and Saudis will have been killed in a three year long war. And guess what, nothing will have changed and some arms-dealers will be a lot richer than before.
why always try to evade the truth when it comes to Iran? The author here refers to four type of approach towards Iran amid all of aggressive nature. He states Obama has exhausted all possible friendly approaches but to no avail. Well, Mr speaker, can you show solid evidence to that effect and realy substantiate and not just fake words? How about how many times Iran showed friendly gestures but ended up with a slap on the face? Who started this fiasco with Iran from the very beginning anyway? Why when USA boasts about upholding freedom and human rights, they meddle with Iran free election in 1953, overthrow the elected president and bring their own pupet? Not just Iran but also many other self respecting and independant nations would not trust the aggressor and endeavour to self protect and oppose the aggressor. The answer with Iran is the most simplestest , show real hand of friendship and recognise Iran severeignty and its self determination, Iran today is surrounded by foreign forces and treated very harshly with constant rythoreic and threats. sanctions after sanctions and a covert war almost 33 years old. Just show hand of real friendship and Iran will ease even more. Its a very simple answer, Mr speaker and maybe one day we will again see the whole truth we expect to hear from real men of wisdom and not from bad propaganda activists giving themselves professorship. No real men of wisdom will ever want WARS, Mr speaker!!
Yes Iran is dangerous, but I remember the ussr under stalin and he was even more dangerous. Attack and the opposition unites with the Islamist. Instead, undermine them. Here is a real strategy. Convert to wind and solar, stop using oil, bankrupt them and their own people will overthrow them.
arabs are not a fan of israel but they are in american camp
With experts like this, it's no wonder the ME is such a mess. Time for the US to pull out and to close its main military base, called Israel
Speaking as an American, I'd be glad to give up some of this 'credibility' to stay out of yet another war. And 'giving up on the middle east' might not be so bad, as long we spent the money saved on an alternative energy policy, like nukes or coal-to-oil. Yes, giving up on the middle east might be nice. We gave up on Vietnam, and it turned out OK. We gave up on the Philippines, and they're fine. Let's give up on the Middle East.
So long Israel is the ME, USA will not give up on the ME (follow the activities of AIPAC and the Neocons).
Sounds like this guy is using a very simple scare tactic to convince people about his idea. Turkey is not moving towards Iran, Turkey is powerful-enough on it's own, it's just getting more independent, that's all, and in case Iran became nuclear, the Gulf oil kingdoms WILL NOT MOVE TOWARDS IRAN, they will rather get together and start their own nuclear programs, a lot of them already have. WHAT IRAN IS DOING RIGHT NOW WILL ONLY LEAD TO THE SUFFERING OF IT'S PEOPLE, what should happen is this: ISRAEL SHOULD OFFICIALY ADMIT HAVING NUKES, once it has, then it will be much easier to move forward because Iran will bend more, and so on and so forth but so long as ISRAEL IS UNWILLING TO TALK ABOUT IT'S NUCLEAR STUFF, this is going no where.