The Limits Of Diplomacy

On Tuesday, while questioning General David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker, Barack Obama called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq. "We should be talking to them as well," said Obama, adding “I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that"

As a lawyer and a politician, I am sure Obama knows an awful lot about negotiating deals. Both sides come together, negotiate hard, and each come away with some, if not all of what they want. But that assumes both parties actually want to reach an agreement.

It has been said that the only thing worse than war with Iran, is a nuclear armed Iran.

Iran is determined to become a nuclear power and the super power in the Middle East. Sure they want the United States out of Iraq, but only so that they can take control there. While the U.S. wants to draw down its forces in Iraq, leaving Iran in charge is not an acceptable outcome. Leaving a nuclear armed Iran in charge is a recipe for nuclear war.

Some argue that a nuclear armed Iran would not be a disaster, pointing out that deterrence prevented a nuclear exchange throughout the Cold War. But the doctrine of Mutual assured Destruction assumes that both sides are rational actors. I am not sure that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad qualifies as rational.

I am one of the last people to equate religious fundamentalism with mental illness, but Ahmadinejad, while not necessarily mentally ill is not rational. At the very least his public statements do not indicate he is. Consider his calls to destroy Israel. The US Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) completed a study last year that indicated Israel would survive as a country after a nuclear war with Iran, albeit with horrific losses, but that Iran would be utterly destroyed. Download the report here. But would this be a real deterrent?

I believe that Ahmadinejad believes that if it ever did come to an all out war with the United States, much less Israel, Iran would prevail because it was God’s will. If millions of Iranians die in the process, well that was God’s will too.

I doubt a good hard talking to by Obama is going to dissuade Ahmadinejad. A credible threat of force might not dissuade Ahmadinejad, but it might dissuade others around him. It might be necessary to use force against Iran. Ironically, the more willing we are to use force, the less likely it is we may have to use it. The threat of force is only effective if it is believable and it is only going to be believable if we are actually willing to use it.

Can diplomacy prevail? It can. But remember, as Karl Von Clausewitz said almost 200 years ago, war is the continuation of diplomacy by other means.