CATO Institute and Iran panel

Conference on Iran at CATO INSTITUTE

March 30, 2012

Part one – Can Diplomacy Work?

Is the current policy — or any diplomatic offer — likely to work? Has the administration defined "diplomacy" as being limited to sanctions and pressure? Could a different approach hold a better chance of success? How is success defined?

Michael Adler, Woodrow Wilson Center
Justin Logan, Cato Institute
Alireza Nader, RAND Corporation
Barbara Slavin, Atlantic Council

NADER:  Missed this speech, due to traffic.

SLAVEN:  Obama has stopped the rush to war.  The Supreme Leader praised Obama saying it was a step out of delusions.  Sactions are shutting down the banks, and Iran oil production going down.  Production was 4.1 million barrels a year ago, 3.8 million barrels a few months, and 3.3 million barrels now.  Unemployment and discontent is up.  She mentioned MEK and getting them off terrorists lists, which Iran will not like.  Her hope is that the US has a goal to try to manage situation – sees the main problem as trying to contain Israel.

US Congress passed resolution to contain Iran, but Senator Rand Paul stopped it saying it would lead to war.   She then talked about Iran’s internal politics, and said that the Supreme Leader and Ahmadinejad are in conflict.  She said the US goal should be to prevent nuclear weapons, not nuclear weapons capabilities.  She said there are no military solutions because facilities and centrifuges are scattered around the country.  If US fails to stop nuclear weapon, then we would have to go to containment which has worked for 30 years.  The question is, will the US be smart and creative and courageous enough to go this route?

ADLER:  He talked about signs that Iran is open to compromise.  Supreme Leader (SL) believes Iran is in existential battle with US due to revolution in 1979 and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  SL believes progress in nuclear program is way to flaunt US, and believes sanctions will make Iran more self-sufficient.  SL has survived a lot, and sanctions have hurt Iran economy, including currency being devalued.  SL believes US influence is going down and US in on the decline.  SL says Obama is delusional but SL my be delusional.  Adler says not many think military strike will work and that diplomacy is the solution.  SL is not open to really settling the issue.  Iran has not decided to weaponize nuclear program at this time.  He feels democratic Iran will be solution to nuclear crisis.

LOGAN:  He supports diplomacy, but sees it as less likely and maybe not realistic.  The Central Bank Sanctions on Iran has 57 demands and there is no “off” ramp by the US Congress…..therefore, no way to resolve the issue.  Logan says the US Congress has not covered themselves in glory.  He mentioned that the Congress used to declare war in the past, now does not, but sees this as probably good even if it is un-Constitutional.  Congress has shown NO hope for diplomacy.  Obama has called for diplomacy, but does not have the political capital to try diplomacy. 

Since the US has much more material and military power, diplomacy must include credible assurances to Iran about safety even with credible intentions.  Libya is an example of the US going back on their assurances, since Libya did stop nuclear program and got overturned anyway.  Logan says what might happen cannot work, and what might work cannot happen.  He believes the US will have to give LARGE CONSESSIONS to convince Iran we are serious.  The US should be willing to walk back on sanctions, but domestic politics prevent this.  He fears diplomacy will not work.

QUESTIONS:  Sanctions are a substitute for war and diplomacy and have taken a momentum of their own.  The US treasury is coming up with clear ways to destroy Iran’s economy.  The US is good at sanctions, not diplomacy.  Slaven says that if Obama is reelected, hope he will be more proactive on diplomacy with Iran.  Logan says that Republicans should not take advice from Rove.

At this point, Ray McGovern stands up and says he is going to talk about the elephant in the room.  His first point is the Israeli Lobby and how that is impacting on the US treatment of Iran, and secondly, that Iran is NOT working on a nuclear weapon – yet the discussion is how do we stop Iran from working on a nuclear weapon.

My question, if they had called on me, would have been to point out that ALL countries with nuclear power capability also have nuclear weapons capability and Iran has not invaded or started a war, so why is it a problem if Iran has this capability? 

Part two – The Options if Diplomacy Fails

If diplomacy fails, what are the military and non-military options the U.S. administration would have? What are the prospects for success? What likely repercussions would follow from bombing Iran?

Jamie Fly, Foreign Policy Initiative
Matthew Kroenig, Georgetown University
Nuno Monteiro, Yale University
Joshua Rovner, U.S. Naval War College

KROENIG:  He said that there are three possible outcomes – 1) diplomacy; 2) live with a nuclear Iran; and 3) military action.  He went on and on about how Iran is not being diplomatic so feels one of the next two options becomes reality.  (He did not mention how the lack of stated conditions to an end to the sanctions was impacting the diplomatic solution. – Susan) Kroenig feels that if Iran has nukes they will behave badly and get more aggressive, and feels military strike is least bad option. (No self-awareness of that option showing the US behaving badly and getting WAY more aggressive than Iran has ever been. – Susan) He feels downside of military action is exaggerated.  He believes that Iran could do some military retaliation, possibly close Strait of Hormuz, and promote terrorism in the region and the US.  The military retaliation probably would not be large, because Iran realizes the US could wipe them out, so they will go for “token retaliation”.  (Of course, this asshole will not be putting his life in any danger. – Susan)

NO MENTION OF INNOCENT LIVES THAT WOULD BE ENDED OR DAMAGED FOREVER.  THIS ASSHOLE IS TOTALLY EVIL AND DOES NOT CARE. – Susan.

MONTEIRO:  He feels possible end game is no weaponizing of nuclear energy.   He argues that if Iran goes for nuclear weapons, then the US could hit them with nuclear weapons also.  He pointed out the falsity that striking before the bomb is built means Iran will respond in restrained manner, but that somehow, they will NOT be restrained if they have nukes.  He says escalation is NOT likely to be a result of nuclear Iran.  What an attack on Iran would mean:  it would be costly, it would generate retaliation, the attack will only delay weapons program but not stop it, so we would still need containment and that would be harder.  He feels Iranian resolve would be boosted and likely end game would be weaponization.  He gives North Korea as a better model – we are living with the fact that they have nuclear weapons. 

FLY:  He says negotiations and sanctions are not working, thereby believes in military options.  He does not feel that limited strike is the best option, since he feels the nature of the regime is the problem.  Claims that Iran has been killing Americans and our allies for years and has horrible human rights record.  (No mention of the fact that the US has killed far more, and has a worse human rights record. – Susan) He feels there will be a cascade of proliferation in the region if Iran develops a nuclear bomb.  And he thinks a bomb will embolden Iran’s proxy terrorists.  He feels the Iran regime will not last five years.  He thinks Pakistan is the model for where Iran will be headed if they get a nuclear bomb.  He brought up A.Q. Khan but did not mention the US part in the development of Khan.  He thinks the military option should have been done years ago, and advocates more extensive strike than Kroenig.  Says to go after navy facilities, go after command and control, provide space for opposition groups to rise up and overthrow the regime like in Libya.   And then he said the downside of containment is clear.  He also stated (during questions) that the US over learned the WMD fiasco lesson.

LIKE KROENIG, HE MADE NO MENTION OF THE INNOCENT LIVES THAT WOULD BE ENED OR DAMAGED FOREVER.  THIS ASSHOLE IS TOTALLY EVIL AND HE DOES NOT CARE.  HE IS EVEN MORE EVIL THAN KROENIG.  – Susan

ROVNER:  He started by saying the problem is how to detain an emerging nuclear power.  He said there is an argument that Iran is not a rational actor, he does not agree.  He thinks what we really need to deter is:

1. rapid expansion of Iran nuclear program
2. transfer of nuclear materials to other groups/countries
3. use of nuclear weapon as cover for aggression (will be emboldened)
4. the use of such weapons by Iran in a war

He feels we can deter a nuclear Iran and address the points above by:

1. deter by world wide approbation
2. make sure we can do nuclear forensics
3. feels that Iran will not be emboldened, and this is exaggerated.  Proxy actors are overblown too.
4. this one can be done easily, because Iran knows we can bomb much more than they can.

He feels deterrence will get harder if Israel launches an attack.   Deterrence requires threats and assurances, and assurances will go away completely with an attack.  We will continue to contain Iran, and the only way we can fail to contain Iran is if we attack Iran.

Side note:  As I was leaving the auditorium for a visit to the restroom, either Fly or Kroenig said that the military action needed to take out Iran’s nuclear program would take “days, maybe weeks, but no longer” and as I was walking past the CSPAN guys I said “where have we heard that before?” and they started laughing.  And at the end of the program, I was talking to a CATO employee on how I think Fly and Kroenig are totally, totally evil.  She agreed with me and gave me her card.  I looked at it later and her last name is “Innocent” which I found ironic!

Link to recordings of the event:

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=9076