Diplomatic ambiguity

The issue of what to do about Iran's nuclear program has been much discussed recently; the leftist blogs have extensively discussed the way the top Democratic candidates are going to such lengths to be sure to say that the option of attacking Iran is not "off the table." The diplomatic theory underlying this, of course, is that our negotiating position is stronger if Iran thinks we might actually use military force, so we should never say we would definitely not do that. One problem with this line of thinking, as many have noted, is that constantly reminding Iran that we're willing to attack them is quite likely to make the government of Iran think that they need nuclear weapons to deter such an attack. I'd like to mention another flaw in the reasoning.

We have overwhelming military force. Everybody knows this. Thus, every country in the world knows that, potentially, the United States could use that military force against them. There is no need to say we're going to do that, or make a big deal of our willingness to do things like that, in order to ensure that other countries take this into account in their planning. Paranoia, plus the extreme badness of any outcome which involves us actually attacking, guarantees that countries are always going to take that into account, whatever our public rhetoric. Thus, it is frivolous to engage in saber-rattling in order to prove to our enemies that we're a threat; they know that perfectly well and need no proof.

Instead, the most likely consequence of publicly making threats is to guarantee that any concessions that our enemies make to us appear to the world to be made under duress. Since many of our enemies appear to be as neurotic about "appearing weak" as our own administration, this is only going to make them more reluctant to make any concessions.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Comments

[Jim Farmelant]

One thing to keep in mind is to consider the differences in responses by the US to Iraq, which the US had alleged to have WMDs under Saddam Hussein, versus the US response to North Korea which in fact did develop nuclear weapons. Iraq, the country which was alleged to have WMDs, but in fact didn't, was invaded by the US in 2003 and Saddam was overthrown. North Korea, on the other hand was never invaded. Eventually a settlement was negotiated in which the North Koreans eventually agreed to dismantle their nuclear weapons program in exchange for various guarantees from the US including promises not to topple their regime plus promises of economic assistance.

The take home lesson here seems obvious. If you are a small country concerned with maintaining a modicum of sovereignty in a world dominated by one big superpower, the way to go is rush and develop your own nuclear weapons, thereby allowing you to negotiate with the world's superpower from a position of relative strength.