Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Will Biden Trigger War in the Middle East?
When President Trump pulled us out of the Iranian deal, also known as the JCPOA, it was one of the most sensible and appropriate actions of his Presidency. The deal, which was supposed to “slow” the Iranian development of a nuclear weapon, was a sham from the start: they refused to adhere to certain inspection guidelines from the beginning, then violated others as time passed; the IAEA figuratively and repeatedly threw up its hands in frustration. When we pulled out, the Iranians used our lack of support as a further excuse to continue to ignore the limitations of the agreement.
Now with the opportunity to manipulate the latest version of an Obama administration (also to be known as the Biden administration), the Iranians know that Biden has stated he will sign on again to the agreement. Biden’s goal is not only foolish but meaningless, since the Iranians have significantly progressed in their nuclear bomb development. What in the world will our re-engaging provide? Here are some of Biden’s ideas about re-joining the JCPOA:
In an op-ed in September, Biden said as president he would ‘make an unshakable commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.’ He argued the best way to achieve that was for the U.S. to re-enter the deal.
‘I will offer Tehran a credible path back to diplomacy. If Iran returns to strict compliance with the nuclear deal, the United States would rejoin the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations,’ Biden wrote.
Even if Biden and Rouhani are looking to strike an agreement, arriving at a formula that would allow the U.S. to re-enter the deal, and for Iran to unwind its nuclear activities, will not be easy.
Rather than removing sanctions all at once or Iran returning immediately to full compliance, a more likely scenario could see an incremental approach over a period of three or four months, said former U.S. officials and European diplomats. A first step could have Iran freeze its nuclear work, in return for some level of sanctions relief. Further steps could see Iran eventually return to compliance and all the nuclear-related sanctions lifted.
Anyone who believes that Iran will keep its end of any bargain is delusional.
If Biden decides to re-up with the JCPOA, there will be several losers. The Arab countries continue to develop relationships with each other at several economic and diplomatic levels, and with Israel as well, which signals efforts to bring peace to the Middle East; recognizing Iran will likely disrupt these historic efforts; Joe Biden will be empowering the Iranians, who are enemies with most of the countries in the region. The Iranians will also likely see sanctions removed that have been devastating to their economy, which will enable them to thrive and threaten the rest of the Middle East. The Palestinians will see the recognition of Iran as a win for their goals (which are almost impossible to determine). Biden taking these actions will not only de-stabilize that part of the world, but he will be fueling the threat of a serious war.
The tragedy and foolishness of these potential actions by Biden were on full display in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal written by Alireza Miryousefi, Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran, after their chief scientist heading nuclear weapon development was killed. The chutzpah of Miryousefi, whose country represents one of the primary supporters of terrorism in the world, was on display. In part, here is what he said in response to an earlier editorial:
Your editorial “Biden, Iran and the Bomb” (Nov. 28) is shameful in its inhumanity. The unjustifiable support for a brutal assassination of a prominent scientist does nothing more than encourage a few criminals, such as the Israeli regime and its allies, to commit more assassinations. The assassination of an official of a U.N. member state in its territory is a dangerous game, opening a Pandora’s box; one whose consequences only reckless, apocalyptic people would ignore. Undoubtedly, the Israeli regime’s involvement in this criminal act is designed to further disrupt the turbulent situation in the region and destroy the path for diplomacy. . .
Considering the duplicity of the Iranians regarding the JCPOA; considering the hundreds of thousands of deaths that have been funded by the Iranian regime; and considering the constant threat to the existence of Israel; I found his argument unpersuasive.
How about you?
Published in Foreign Policy
Normal nations do have their own agendas and goals – which they pursue with the means at their disposal.
Let’s just take various interventions in Syria for example. These, direct and/or by funded proxy, have been undertaken (in no particular order) by:
Turkey
The US
Saudi
Qatar
The UAE
Lebanon
Iran
Russia
Israel
And probably a bunch more.
All of these interventions were driven by self interest, a lot of them were arguably harmful to Syria, but none of this makes these nations or countries abnormal – on the contrary they were acting completely normally, if also grubbily.
The great disappointment that many in the US seemed to feel about the JCPOA is that it failed to make Iran an abnormal country by cutting off its ability to pursue its own interests with the means at its disposal. (An unrealistic objective, as things stood and stand.)
I find this very unpersuasive, given the Iranian government’s actions over the past few decades. The only reason you will go to war with Iran, imho, is if you think you can impose regime change in Iran (again) without an unacceptable loss of US lives or disruption to its economy. And perhaps that moment has passed, with or without an Iranian nuclear bomb?
Iran could continue to fulfil its assigned role, however, as the carefully chosen (ie not very strong) “threat” that justifies military spending and the trialling and refinement of methods of control, like sanctions (pour encourager les autres).
Or you could choose a different path. Realistically, it’s up to you.
Not exactly true. Most nations have agendas, goals and desires; however, in most causes they are not willing to use all means at their disposal to accomplish them. Certain nations have goals that are at odds with one another yet for most of the last half of the 20th and the first 5th of the 21st century they have pursued these ends more or less peaceably. Modern Iran started its life with an act of war against the United States and has continued to use far more belligerent means to accomplish its goals than other states. Although I will grant you that Russia tends to behave the same way when they think they can get away with it. The difference is the stated goal of Iran, much like the stated goal of the USSR is to export the revolution world wide. This does not make it a normal country and means it is willing to use means that most other countries don’t countenance in the pursuit of foreign policy.
Somewhat agree here although some of this is that nature abhors a vacuum once the ball started rolling in Syria some of the others pretty much had to get involved to contain the spread of the Chaos, but yes the Syrian intervention as messy as it is represents a pretty normal state of affairs for nations. I don’t think that has anything really to do with my point about Iran being a country that is interested in exporting revolution.
Well the point of the JCPOA from the US’s standpoint is that we would like Iran to curb its revolutionary exporting foreign policy and behave in a manner that is more keeping with US goals and objectives in the middle east. Are you saying that the US should be in an agreement that doesn’t further its own interest. That would be silly. My point is the JCPOA gave the Iranian’s space and money to pursue domestic changes to improve their economy and the life of the average Iranian. The leadership chose instead to use that space and money to pursue foreign adventurism and export revolution. As such from the US’s perspective and the European (stated) perspective it has been a failure. I am sure from the Iranian perspective, Chinese perspective and Russian perspective it has been a success; however, that is not a good argument for staying in it or reentering it.
Regime change in Iran would be a boon and blessing for both average Iranian and the world. If it could happen. The Iranian regime is a destabilizing force in the region and the world. It is corrupt, warlike, has horrible human rights record and generally lacks the popular support of the population. That doesn’t mean that the US can or should go to war to change the regime in Iran; however, it doesn’t mean we should be propping it up either. Realistically we should keep it isolated, and leave it to its fate.
Well yes the defender always causes the war. The aggressor wants what they want and if you give it to them without a fight there will be no war; however, eventually they will want something you are not willing to give. Then you will have to fight. Appeasement is a poor strategy in the long run. I don’t think the US wants Iran to control the Persian gulf, wipe Israel off the map, dominate its Sunni neighbors, or reestablish the Persian Empire, so I foresee a fairly rocky relationship between the two countries for quite some time. Also having the largest state sponsor of terrorism with the capability of arming terrorists with nuclear weapons doesn’t seem like a good thing for the world, nor does a nuclear arms race between Iran and the other gulf states.
I’ve heard Khameini is planning to step down and put his son in that spot. That is historically not how the change would be made; there’s a council that would make that decision. I don’t know anything about his son, or the implications of this type of change (although it’s unlikely the son will be any better), but it will be interesting to watch.
Please explain.
Fairly simple. Very shortly after the Iranian revolution. The US Embassy was seized by agents of the new revolutionary government, since Embassies are sovereign territory of the Nation that they represent. This was an invasion by the revolutionary government of Iran on the territory of the US by any international law this is an act of war. In truth this may have had an impact on the 1980 presidential election in the US, so it could be said that the Iranian Revolutionary Government was involved in regime change of the US. Although admittedly I think it just contributed to the general impression of the Carter administration as a feckless failure, so while it didn’t help, I doubt it was decisive.
Why the US Embassy and not, for example, the Swedish Embassy?
My point is not that seizing embassies is okay, but rather that America’s interactions with Iran, or even with the forces that were the revolution’s victors, far predated the invasion of the embassy. It did not ‘just happen’ without any history.
To be fair same Constitution, same form of government, so hardly regime change.
Ah yes the classic point. The west and American are always to blame for ever negative interaction with a bad regime in the world. While their negative actions are excused and contextualized. So basically because of Mosaddegh the US had it coming is that the crux of your argument. You know what if it had been an isolated incident of bad action then perhaps there would be a reason to forgive and move on; however, it hasn’t been an isolated incident. Iran has shown itself pretty consistently to be a ruthless, expansionist regime that uses terrorism as tool of foreign policy. It has engaged in a decades long proxy war with the US in Iraq. It has launched strikes against US allies. It has even seized US ships in the Persian Gulf. They are bad actors, so throwing them a lifeline in the JPCOA is a mistake. Even if I were to accept your premise that Mosaddegh was a mistake for the US that would hardly justify dealing with this government which looks nothing at all like the government of Iran in the 50s.
I was being somewhat flippant; however, foreign entanglements can cause profound shifts in US governments action. The governing philosophy of a Donald Trump or a Ronald Reagan is quite different from a Jimmy Carter or a Barack Obama, or a Joe Biden, as such the range of actions that can be expected from one or another are profound when it comes to foreign policy. While it isn’t (hopefully) a change in the form of government those differences have had and continue to have profound impacts on the world.
Also I don’t think that the US would largely care what the constitution or form of government was in Iran. If the @SusanQuinn is right and Iran is decaying? reverting? into a monarchy that looks inward instead of outward I suspect that would be enough to change opinions on the wisdom of engagement with it.
You seriously just blamed the United States for the attack on our embassy.
You point is precisely that seizing embassies is okay if it’s an American embassy.
Everything is our fault, because only we have agency in the world, because we are better than they are.
There you are, Zafar. Your entire philosophy boiled down into a single line.
I’m sometimes amused, but mostly kinda disgusted, by the people who argue that because we’re worse than everyone else in the world, we must do things that are only possible because we’re actually better. But they don’t recognize the “better” part.
Well that’s a classic straw man, isn’t it?
Did I say that?
You said the current regime in Iran started with an act of war against the US (by invading the embassy and taking diplomats hostage).
I pointed out that America had actually been in conflict with the forces (only one of which was the clerical wing) that overthrew the Shah for a long time before that, so this act of war had a context.
You caricatured that into “American are always to blame”. And caricatures, or straw men, are always easier to disprove.
Why would you do that?
Don’t you think they might say that too?
Sure, there was the Mossadegh coup, but then also backing the Shah and savak, and then freezing Iran’s $$ accounts (which matters for a country that imports food), and then covert support for Saddam when he invaded Iran….
None of this is exceptional (except maybe in scope). That’s the kind of thing powerful countries routinely do to preserve their power in a region. But why do we have to pretend that it didn’t happen, or that Iran can’t remember this and shouldn’t take it into account? That seems quixotic.
True. We conflate form of government with foreign policy, and there’s no real reason to do that.
straw man.
straw man.
straw man.
Also just noting: the CoC doesn’t require me to flatter anybody.
It is the crux of your argument. It is always the crux of your argument.
Hollering “straw man” doesn’t change that.
That countries own the consequences of all their actions, not just the convenient ones that reflect well on them?
That’s true for Iran, but it’s also true for America (or India, or Australia, etc.).
But it was a straw man.
I didn’t say that “only [you] have agency in the world, because [you] are better than they are”. I’m certain that I’ve never said that or even thought that. I don’t think it’s true.
Your agency has more impact in the world because you are more powerful, imho that’s fact, but that’s also true of any two countries with a power differential like the one between America and Iran. At the end of the day America can meaningfuly sanction Iran, not the other way round.
… and if you go back futher, Persia was a brutal, expansionist empire who invaded Greece, then attacked the Romans ….
It’s tiresome, Zafar. It is the litany of losers.
And then you get the people who might argue that since Iran used children in their war against Iraq, that somehow means we have to use children too in fighting Iran, otherwise it’s “unfair.”
If that had an impact on how Greece and Italy viewed Iran, and they were involved in a dispute, that would be relevant information in terms of how they perceived and dealt with each other.
Arguably history influences how the Balkan countries perceive and deal with Turkey (and vice versa). Or the embassy invasion in 1979 influences how America perceives and deals with Iran.
Honestly, I don’t understand why ‘our history influences how we perceive and deal with others’ is in any way a controversial point of view.
I’m sorry, but I’m missing the point you are trying to make.
Oooh. Handy super power you have there. The ability to determine what part of my culture should matter to me.
How about if somebody explains what you folks are arguing about. Maybe I can help? It sounds like, @zafar, that you are critical of the US because we are probably the most powerful nation in the world, and we have the power to sanction others, like Iran, but they can’t sanction us. Yes, that’s how it works, especially if the country with less power breaks an agreement. Or am I totally misunderstanding?
I’m not sure either.
My point is that all countries have a history which affects how they perceive other polities. Whether they see them as benevolent, malign, trustworthy, deceitful, etc.
It’s fair to say, imho, that Iran and America (the polities) have some very negative views about each other based on their history.
Power is power – and most countries use what they have to achieve their goals. The US is normal in this regard, though its impact is immense because it is the superpower.
None if this , in itself, makes you better or worse than other countries.
Ah, there’s the rub. We are better than other countries in most respect. We may not always use our power effectively, but we are, in the overall picture, much better than most. And I’m not going to list what is better and worse.
But why does it bother you so much if someone doesn’t buy that? If someone doesn’t preface all comments about the US’ dealings with Iran with a boilerplate ‘motherhood statement’ about how wonderful the US is?
Edited to add: is it a response to cognitive dissonance? Objectively the US has been awful to Iran and its people. (Overthrew an elected Government with a coup in 1953 because of a rivalry with the Soviet Union, supported a tyrant [the Shah] and his secret police for more than two decades, helped Saddam use chemical weapons in an 8 year war against Iran, sanctioned the heck out of the country, diminishing ordinary Iranians’ quality of life significantly, after the Shah was overthrown to implement a ‘Cuba lesson’ for the Gulf.) It’s hard to see what is morally ‘better’ about this.
You’re right. You don’t have to agree. For anyone who takes my position, we shouldn’t be insulted when others don’t agree.
This is where we get into trouble, @zafar. I know about that stuff. But you choose to rub it in our faces. Are you trying to say that we do some things that are moral and other things that aren’t? Okay. Or do you want to match Iran’s immorality against ours, year for year, act for act? The point we try to make, still is that overall, we show a stronger moral position in the world than almost any world power. It is a relative measure.
And if we never opened up the occasional can of whup-ass, “moral” or not, we’d end up like a national version of Mitt Romney. Or much of Europe.
The United States is a free and prosperous nation that attempts to export freedom and prosperity. Other nations are either not-free, not-prosperous, or not in the export business of those two things.
Well put.
And if they’re not-prosperous, it’s usually if not always because of the other things.
It’s
hardimpossible to meaningfully discuss America’s relationship with Iran without including the relevant history. And that would be relevant to both the US and Iran.To what end?
Sure, but if you were an Iranian patriot you might find “okay, we did that 1953 coup and overthrew a democratically elected government, and then supported an absolute monarch and his secret police for a couple of decades, and then covertly supported Iraq’s invasion of and war Iran which killed a lot of Iranians, but if you compare us to anybody else we’re really the good guys and you can trust us not to break our word” unconvincing on the face of it.
I am not making a moral argument atm, just pointing out that it is unrealistic to ignore the history.
It also resulted in the Islamic Revolution and the Taliban. Right?
If anything, it was the relative weakness of the Dems that caused those.