SHOULD ALL OPTIONS BE ON THE TABLE? Over at the other Ezra site, I have some posts responding to Ken Baer's claim that the experts are united around the "no nuclear Iran, all options on the table" approach. That's, uh, untrue. But it's worth digging into the difference between keeping all options on the table and abetting war. Some folks seem to think you can continually threaten Iran while never meaning to attack, an outlook that reminds me of all the liberal hawks who spent the runup to the Iraq War advocating for their personal Iraq Wars, rather than the one George W. Bush wanted to fight. In the end, of course, everyone who voted for the resolution based on giving Bush strength at the UN, or sending 600,000 troops, simply enabled the war Bush wanted to fight. So unless these people don't believe Bush is serious about attacking Iran -- and all evidence suggests that he is -- those of us who think attacking Tehran would be a catastrophic mistake have to be concerned with stopping it. A secondary causal chain is that threatening to attack Iran may indeed make Iran's belligerence more likely, and thus may again increase the probability of us attacking Iran. Here's Ken Pollack (I know, I know): "I am very concerned both by the President�s military moves toward Iran (like moving a second aircraft carrier and Patriot anti-missile batteries to the Persian Gulf, and ordering the U.S. military to use �all necessary means� to shut down Iranian activities in Iraq) and his unnecessarily threatening rhetoric toward them. Some degree of quiet pressure on Iran to stop their more damaging operations in Iraq could be useful, and the Iranians probably would back down under those circumstances; but the President�s policy risks engaging Iran�s nationalist pride, its strategic interests, and its real fear of the United States." Given our history of overthrowing Iranian governments, our tendency to imply that we're ready to do it again taps into a wellspring of defensively nationalistic, anti-American sentiment. The very idea that we're willing to invade them for weaponizing justifies, particularly for the regime, the case for weaponizing. And capitulation in the face of US threats is a political impossibility for all involved, particularly given the competing power centers and nationalistic sentiments (I really do suggest folks read Iranian-born Shahram Chubin's fantastic book on the country's nuclear ambitions). Were the threats of invasion or strikes off the table, and the entire conversation was focused on the economic and diplomatic costs we were determined to impose, the Iranian conversation would be much more cost-benefit oriented -- though it's certainly a cost-benefit calculus that could still lead to a nuclear Iran. But I just don't see how keeping "all options on the table" does anything to restrain Bush's aggressive impulses or calm the Iranian regime's behavior. It appears, in every way, to make war more likely. And given the history of the strategy over the last few years, it's not done anything to deter or cow the regime. So given that i think averting war with Iran is of preeminent importance, I'm for pushing the strategy that makes it least likely. But I'm interested in hearing what the other Tapped folk think. Rob? Garance? --Ezra Klein
