I
don't want to get into the weeds about how poorly argued and
substantiated his speech was (the guests in the interview above do that,
but just to give you a sense, Bibi said that Iran is competing with
ISIS for global domination). But I don't fault him for trying. Like in
game theory, it's all about the payoffs and priorities of each player.
And with the same set of facts, rational and smart people can come to
wildly different conclusions. From their point of view, they're totally
right based on their goals.
Re: Israel-Iran, obviously the
priority of a conservative Zionist regime is the preservation of the
Jewish State at all costs, and keeping pressure on their enemies in
perpetuity. No other cost consideration comes close (some IDF soldiers
killed - better than getting nuked, angering the Arab world - they can
live with that, upsetting the US and UN - they don't really need us
anymore, and there are still enough diehard pro-Israel folks here to
almost guarantee indefinite US support). So they will do anything to
prevent a nuclear Iran or anyone making concessions to Iran or other
enemies (which includes breaking protocol to address Congress).
US
presidents and Israeli PMs disagree on stuff, and it can cost the PM
his job if the Israeli public perceives that the PM is endangering the
US-Israeli special relationship. That contributed to Bibi's ouster the
first time around, as he butted heads with Clinton one too many times.
But currently, I think the Israeli public is so fearful of a nuclear
Iran that US relations are a distant concern (or they take it for
granted, hence the persistence on expanding West Bank settlements). Even
liberal press in Israel support Bibi's view (but not necessarily his
methods) that the US should not give an inch to Iran.
Even if
Iran's leadership is more moderate now, and with the proposed controls
it's highly unlikely that they can develop and test weapons covertly,
Israel can't even tolerate a 0.1% chance. So they will bomb if they need
to, which will trigger a regional war of course - which I bet they
think they can win (might be right, but what about the consequences to
other parties?). Or they will try to derail the current negotiations,
which in their opinion won't curb the nuclear development, but will ease
sanctions and enable Iran to get stronger. They're in the mindset that
Israel's enemies are insane genocidal religious fanatics who can't be
trusted under any circumstance. So there's no point to negotiate - you
know, the typical justification between enemies.
The irony
is that the hardliners in Tel Aviv and Tehran want the same thing - no
detente, no talks, and just cold/hot war (it reminds me of the plot of
Star Trek 6). The talks were kicked off by the moderate/reformist regime
of Rouhani (secret overtures to the Obama admin.), but he is on a short
leash and has rivals. The nuclear program is one of their few trump
cards, and it's by far their best card. He banked his political survival
on this, so the hawks want his efforts to fail so they can assume power
again - and fight the infidels their way. That is not a great outcome
for anyone, especially the Iranian people.
Apart from the
hawks, I'm not really sure what Iran's priorities and goals are. I know
they want to get their economy going, and the people want to be part of
the global scene (and they want better relations with the US and West). I
guess the gov't still wants to keep tight control and develop a nuclear
program for their prestige/leverage. But I don't know what their
official stance is on foreign policy. Are they truly imperialistic as
Israel claims? I think the problem with diagnosing aggression is that
it's often rooted in fear/defense. Very few regimes just want to conquer
and kill everyone (ISIS may be an exception, but they're not a state
with leaders who are held accountable to anyone). We ostensibly invaded
Iraq to make the world safer. It's possible that Iran supports Hizbullah
and other Shia militias because they fear the Sunni and Western enemies
all around them, not because they want to dominate the region. And even
if Iran wants to become the most prominent power in the Mideast, the
goal could be regime preservation in the face of potential aggression
against them, not necessarily continued global expansion. But to Iran's
enemies, of course they want to assume the worst motives. I wonder what
the Iranians think the US and Israel want.
For the US,
obviously we have an interest in the strength and survival of Israel
(and the defeat of Islamist groups), but we also want to broker a
2-state solution and have Arab/Persian-Israeli peace. Or at least the
absence of war, which would be disruptive to energy markets and global
stability. Yes, some factions in the US want war in the Holy Land to
bring about Armageddon, but I am not sure how prevalent and influential
they are. We don't want Iran to nuke anyone, but we have a little more
faith in their restraint than Israel does (esp. with the right
incentives and threats in place). So the payoff we get from taking a
chance on negotiation is maybe worth it to avoid isolation and
escalation to war (which seems inevitable as long as hardliners are in
power in Israel and Iran). So where does that leave us?
(#s are guesses for demo purposes)
ISRAEL
Negotiate -3
Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) 5
Fight Now 1
IRAN MODERATES (currently in power)
Negotiate 3
Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) -3
Fight Now -5
US (5+1 nations)
Negotiate 3
Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) -1
Fight Now -5
I
am not sure how officially involved Israel is in the talks, but their
goal is probably to change the 5+1's payoffs so that Negotiate becomes
the least favored option (hence the references to Hitler and whatnot).
Bibi actually said we should "make a better deal" (better for Israel of
course), but that means he wants us to be more of a hard-ass. Though we
know Iran won't just cave (this is their best card to play as I said,
and they expect top dollar); they may walk away if our demands are too
extreme. That would sink Rouhani and the reformers, and lead to the
hardline war-is-likely outcome that some parties want.
No comments:
Post a Comment