Obama, the Iranian Nuclear Issue and the Notion of Containment
Published in Le Figaro
(France) on 23 March 2012
by Laure Mandeville (link to original)
(France) on 23 March 2012
by Laure Mandeville (link to original)
Translated from
by Deonca Williams.
Edited by Casey J. Skeens.
Faced with an Iranian nuclear threat, can we really say that the American administration excludes the concept of containment of a country who successfully obtained the military atom? Well, this is in fact what President Obama said quite forcefully during an early March interview with the Atlantic Monthly newspaper, right before the annual conference of the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobby in Washington.
It is necessary to reassure Israelis and send a clear message to Tehran of how "unacceptable" it is to continue an Iranian nuclear weapons program. While explaining that he continued to believe in the possibility of a diplomatic solution and the deterrent force of economic sanctions implemented against Iran by the international community, the president has not, however, excluded the option of military force, in order to appease Israeli leaders who regularly threaten to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities if nothing is done to prevent Iran from working on the atom.
But is this really what is in the cards?
I spoke yesterday with an American expert, close to the Republicans, who is also well-informed on strategic issues and professes a somewhat different opinion. According to him, no one today talks about containment, but it is clear that this option is definitely in the cards. For him, military strikes would simply be "catastrophic" because they will never succeed in destroying Iran's potential; strikes would also seal the sacred union of the whole nation who is backing the Iranian regime, although currently it is extremely fragile and hated by the youth. He says it would be "devastating," and he is convinced that the American administration will not support such a scenario. He refers to the thundering declarations from Rick Santorum on the need for military strikes as "childish" and explains that in his opinion, the Israelis themselves would never be crazy enough to attack a country which would then legitimately attack them back. Their current rhetoric would be to increase pressure on the West, so that the West would in turn exacerbate the pressure on the Iranians.
This is actually what is happening, given the impressive system of sanctions which now surrounds Iran in a bolt of energy and a financial situation that has becoming increasingly more restrictive. “The recent decisions undertaken by the European Union to forego Iranian oil is viewed as very important,” says our expert. “The administration thinks that this action will start to bear fruit this summer, and therefore push the regime to negotiate...”
He remains convinced that Iran, a great "intellectual and scientific nation," will eventually have a nuclear weapon, if it decides to do so, whether the West likes it or not. "The question remains as to whether we can plant the needle at the right time to deflate Iran’s ambitions and help her choose another path," commented the expert, speaking of a "subtle" and difficult game, but well worth it, given the tremendous desire for democracy that exists among the Iranian youth. Otherwise, we will not have a solution, as was seen with the Soviets, Chinese and others, and we will have to practice full deterrence through an active policy of containment, because no one, especially not Obama, can risk stating these truths during the election time, for fear of alienating a very pro-Israel American electorate.
It is necessary to reassure Israelis and send a clear message to Tehran of how "unacceptable" it is to continue an Iranian nuclear weapons program. While explaining that he continued to believe in the possibility of a diplomatic solution and the deterrent force of economic sanctions implemented against Iran by the international community, the president has not, however, excluded the option of military force, in order to appease Israeli leaders who regularly threaten to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities if nothing is done to prevent Iran from working on the atom.
But is this really what is in the cards?
I spoke yesterday with an American expert, close to the Republicans, who is also well-informed on strategic issues and professes a somewhat different opinion. According to him, no one today talks about containment, but it is clear that this option is definitely in the cards. For him, military strikes would simply be "catastrophic" because they will never succeed in destroying Iran's potential; strikes would also seal the sacred union of the whole nation who is backing the Iranian regime, although currently it is extremely fragile and hated by the youth. He says it would be "devastating," and he is convinced that the American administration will not support such a scenario. He refers to the thundering declarations from Rick Santorum on the need for military strikes as "childish" and explains that in his opinion, the Israelis themselves would never be crazy enough to attack a country which would then legitimately attack them back. Their current rhetoric would be to increase pressure on the West, so that the West would in turn exacerbate the pressure on the Iranians.
This is actually what is happening, given the impressive system of sanctions which now surrounds Iran in a bolt of energy and a financial situation that has becoming increasingly more restrictive. “The recent decisions undertaken by the European Union to forego Iranian oil is viewed as very important,” says our expert. “The administration thinks that this action will start to bear fruit this summer, and therefore push the regime to negotiate...”
He remains convinced that Iran, a great "intellectual and scientific nation," will eventually have a nuclear weapon, if it decides to do so, whether the West likes it or not. "The question remains as to whether we can plant the needle at the right time to deflate Iran’s ambitions and help her choose another path," commented the expert, speaking of a "subtle" and difficult game, but well worth it, given the tremendous desire for democracy that exists among the Iranian youth. Otherwise, we will not have a solution, as was seen with the Soviets, Chinese and others, and we will have to practice full deterrence through an active policy of containment, because no one, especially not Obama, can risk stating these truths during the election time, for fear of alienating a very pro-Israel American electorate.