CNN: Five analysis look into "Is war with Iran inevitable?"
22 replies, posted
[QUOTE](CNN) -- In the face of economic sanctions and international condemnation, Iran remains defiant over its nuclear energy program.
It has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a major passageway for much of the world's oil, in retaliation for any embargo. And it has vowed to punish the United States and Israel, accusing them of being connected to the recent assassinations of some Iranian nuclear scientists.
U.S. and Israeli officials have denied having anything to do with the mysterious killings, but they're not backing down on their hard-line stance.
"As long as (the Iranians) shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent," U.S. President Barack Obama said Tuesday night in his State of the Union speech. "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better."
Tehran insists it's pursuing nuclear energy for civilian purposes, not for military use. The U.S. and its allies aren't buying it.
Last week, Obama's former national security adviser said he thought this could be the year that things finally come to a head.
"I think 2012 has seen itself as the year that Iran has got to be dealt with one way or the other," said James L. Jones, speaking at a panel discussion in Washington.
But what way will that be? Will a peaceful solution present itself, or will the situation devolve into a military conflict?
CNN.com reached out to five experts for their opinion and analysis.
[release][img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120125033439-hunter-headshot-left-tease.jpg[/img]
[B]Hunter: War doesn't have to be inevitable[/B]
[I]Shireen T. Hunter is a visiting professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. She has written several books on Iranian politics and Islam.[/I]
In the last few months, tensions between Iran and the United States have risen to alarming levels.
The U.S. and its allies are running out of nonmilitary options of pressuring Iran, and Iran is facing economic strangulation.
The two sides are moving perilously close to a situation where there seems to be only one option left: military confrontation. But war doesn't have to be inevitable. Not if both sides show flexibility and put their national interests ahead of a misguided national pride.
The main stumbling block in achieving a compromise has always been the unspoken but ever-present U.S. feeling that Iran must be taught a lesson -- that it should admit to its wrong ways and repent. Iran, meanwhile, has shied away from appearing to be buckling under U.S. pressure.
To overcome these psychological barriers, Iran must take concrete steps to alleviate U.S. fears regarding its nuclear program. The U.S., in turn, must provide Iran with what amounts to a diplomatic fig leaf. Examples could be broadening the scope of prospective talks beyond the nuclear issue and offering Iran real incentives -- lifting sanctions rather than promising not to impose new sanctions.
As with any successful diplomacy, both sides could appear to be the winners in the end. But if war breaks out, both Iran and the U.S. will lose big.[/release]
[release][img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120125033548-javedanfar-headshot-left-tease.jpg[/img]
[B]Javedanfar: Keep an eye on Iranian politics[/B]
[I]Meir Javedanfar is an Iranian-Israeli Middle East analyst. He has guest-lectured on Iranian politics in five languages and more than 20 universities around the world. His writings can be found on his blog.[/I]
This looks to be a very difficult year for Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The external challenges are very serious. The Arab Spring has caused much damage to Iran's standing in the Middle East, and Obama's dual track of sanctions and diplomacy has brought isolation and very damaging economic sanctions.
But what is happening at home is far more important. This is the place to keep an eye on.
By backing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 2009 elections, Khamenei alienated many other parts of the regime. Since then, he has lived to regret that decision, as Ahmadinejad turned out to be a serious liability, both for the regime and for the supreme leader's efforts to create consensus.
Ahmadinejad is not only a divisive figure; he is also ruining Iran's economy with his populist economic policies, which until very recently was to keep interest rates low. By flooding the economy with such liquidity, Ahmadinejad contributed to the devaluation of the riyal, which is already suffering from loss of confidence because of the recent sanctions.
This will be the year that Khamenei will have to make a decision about Iran's nuclear program. His current strategy of isolating Iran and not answering IAEA questions are justifying the sanctions that are ruining the country's economy. The regime can live without its nuclear program, but not without its economy.
Even if Iran survives the sanctions, Khamenei will still have to solve the regime's deepening divisions. This requires opening up the political system to allow other players within the system to take part, making the regime more transparent, and fighting corruption. This could be harder to confront than Israel's military threats and Obama's tough sanctions.[/release]
[release][img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120125033043-alterman-headshot-left-tease.jpg[/img]
[B]Alterman: One rogue action could lead to war[/B]
[I]Jon B. Alterman is director and senior fellow of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He has lectured in more than 25 countries on subjects related to the Middle East and U.S. policy toward the region.[/I]
The biggest obstacle to understanding what will happen with Iran is the uncertainty every side feels about the potential actions of every other side.
The Iranians, the Israelis, the Americans and others are each trying to preserve ambiguity. The Iranians do not want anyone to know how close they are to having a nuclear weapon -- in fact, they insist they do not want one at all -- and the Israelis do not want anyone to know the circumstances under which they would take military action. The United States has declared certain "red lines" -- for example, blocking the Strait of Hormuz -- but it has also made clear that those are not the only red lines. Each side is trying to demonstrate its determination while preserving its freedom of action.
Politics will create more uncertainty in 2012. Presidential and congressional elections in the United States, parliamentary elections in Iran, and the prospect of early elections in Israel (combined with confirmed or potential leadership changes in China, Russia, France and Germany) suggest that leaders will see things through a political prism.
Some argue that political transitions in the West may make it difficult for Western leaders to respond coherently to Iranian actions -- that if the Iranians want to declare themselves a nuclear weapons state, this is the year. I think that is unlikely.
While the possibility remains that one side will pursue a limited war, it is more likely that the sides will stumble into a war that no side is seeking. Given the high alert on all sides, a rogue action or even a mistaken one can quickly turn into a shooting war.[/release]
[release][img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120125033639-niknejad-headshot-left-tease.jpg[/img]
[B]Niknejad: Iran doesn't want to lose face[/B]
[I]Kelly Golnoush Niknejad is founder and editor-in-chief of Tehran Bureau, an independent source of news on Iran and the Iranian diaspora.[/I]
Tehran won't sit idly by as the Obama administration continues its hard-line approach on Iran. There will probably be more threats, to choke up the Strait of Hormuz or retaliate outside of the Middle East, if the United States keeps clamping down and debilitating its economy.
Even when the hits come from Israel, as recent reports about its support of Jundullah or the assassination of Iran's nuclear scientists appear to indicate, the finger-pointing will be directed at the United States.
That's because it doesn't do Iran much good to lash out at Israel. If Iran concedes Israel's alleged role in the plots, they will put themselves under pressure to use their proxies, like Hezbollah in Lebanon, to lob missiles at it in retaliation.
Instead, Tehran will point the finger at the United States, hoping Washington will pressure Israel to stop.
Unless the leaders of Iran believe there's a real possibility of regime change, they will not capitulate. They don't want to lose face. Unlike the late shah, I can't imagine Ayatollah Khamenei being coaxed to live out his days hiking in the Alps. He'll fight to stay in power until the bitter end.
This heightened tension is very dangerous, especially given the lack of diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States. There is no hot line. There is no real channel of communication like there was with the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War. A misunderstanding or miscalculation may lead to a war.
And as many Iran watchers have pointed out, a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities does not necessarily mean the collapse of the regime. It may actually help it consolidate power in the face of domestic strife and clashes within its own camp. At least that's what the war with Iraq did for it after the 1979 revolution.[/release]
[release][img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120125033343-clawson-headshot-left-tease.jpg[/img]
[B]Clawson: The finish line is in sight[/B]
[I]Patrick Clawson is director of research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, where he directs the Iran Security Initiative. He has authored 18 books or studies on Iran.[/I]
Both Iran and the United States have approached the nuclear issue as a marathon, not as a sprint. But the finish line is in sight.
After 20 years of dispute, 2012 may well show whether Washington's or Tehran's approach has been more successful.
The U.S. strategy has been to demonstrate to Iran's leaders that life gets worse every day that the impasse goes on. Washington secured U.N. sanctions on items with dual military and civilian uses, and it assembled a broad coalition of countries applying tough oil and financial sanctions.
Iran's bellicose threats about blocking the Strait of Hormuz show that the sanctions have finally gotten its leaders' attention. Iran's Central Bank governor said the sanctions are worse than Iraq's attacks during the Iran-Iraq war, and he compared Iran's situation to the worst times faced by the earliest Muslims. If these sanctions do not lead Iran to negotiate, it is doubtful any sanctions will.
Iran's approach has been to steadily but slowly develop its nuclear capacities, expecting the world to begrudgingly accept each small step forward.
President Bill Clinton spent eight years insisting Iran could never have a nuclear power plant, but eventually Washington relented. Today, Iran is acquiring impressive missile expertise and a stockpile of enriched uranium.
Within a few years, Iran will be treated by the world as a country that, if it does not already have nuclear warheads atop its missiles, could quickly do so. As that point nears, Iran has less reason to negotiate over the nuclear issue.[/release][/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/27/world/meast/5-voices-iran/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2[/url]
War can be avoided if both parties would stop waving their dicks, sit down and talk.
is war inevitable (when we all start talking on the inevitability of a war with Iran)
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;34425101]is war inevitable (when we all start talking on the inevitability of a war with Iran)[/QUOTE]
Obama said peace is still being offered on the table but when it comes to protecting Israel he said no options are being left off the table to meet that demand.
ie We want to be peaceful(if you stop attempts to make nukes) but we're most likely going to bomb you back to the stone age if you keep pissing in our little brother's sandbox.
Alterman: One rogue action could lead to war
Pretty much what everyone is waiting for at this point.
Sometimes Iran seems a little like North Korea with the way it keeps making scare threats that seem to come up as not much. I don't know too much about the whole situation, but I read in another thread a few weeks ago that with the nuke thing, it's more like they're "developing the ability to develop," and aren't really far along. They kept bragging about getting our drone, but it's been noted that drones go down all the time and it's likely that was an older model or whatever. But again, I really don't know my stuff with this issue.
War will be inevitable if we elect one of those guys out of those running for the Republican vote who keep saying "Well, sure we said the same thing about Iraq, but this is like, totally different, so if I'm elected we'll definitely bomb them for trying to look scary."
But, for the third time, I [b]really[/b] don't know much about this.
I read a interesting article a while back, about how the world is eventually going to have to accept the idea of a Iran with nuclear capability. Even if they back down from any nuclear program now, chances are they will be pursuing it in the future. Even if they were attacked and most/all of their infrastructure wiped out, they would pursue it down the road.
Perhaps if we actually talked about this, came to the realization that a nuclear Iran is going to happen, either now, or in the future, and realized that it would be better to approach this diplomatically, we would have more say in the aftermath.
What I think is the scariest about this whole situation is the fact that Iran is not some third-world nation (economically/technologically, ethically is another situation) and if it comes to war/armed conflict, a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt and killed. The people of Iran are just as innocent as any other group of civilians in the world, and I vehemently oppose the idea of making their situation at home any worse than it is. We don't need any military action to solidify their political system either.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;34425184]Obama said peace is still being offered on the table but when it comes to protecting Israel he said no options are being left off the table to meet that demand.
ie We want to be peaceful(if you stop attempts to make nukes) but we're most likely going to bomb you back to the stone age if you keep pissing in our little brother's sandbox.
Alterman: One rogue action could lead to war
Pretty much what everyone is waiting for at this point.[/QUOTE]
Which is entirely stupid on the US's behalf because if anyone is doing anything provocative in IR terms, it's Israel and the US
[editline]28th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ewitwins;34426029]We don't need any military action to solidify their political system either.[/QUOTE]
I know right?
How should we expect the Iranian people to rise up and topple their government when we've spent the last three decades giving them plenty of reasons to hate the West.
Iran's president right now is not even expected to finish his second term, because he is incredibly unpopular.
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/19/ahmadinejad-iran-power-struggle[/url]
The article is from last year, but it's still legit.
[QUOTE=Leonmyster;34426229]Iran's president right now is not even expected to finish his second term, because he is incredibly unpopular.
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/19/ahmadinejad-iran-power-struggle[/url]
The article is from last year, but it's still legit.[/QUOTE]
I hope he gets replaced with someone who's name is just as fun to say
[editline]27th January 2012[/editline]
also less of a douchebag
I still got money on china
War could be avoided, but Iran is just asking for it
Only problem with warring with iran is that they are crazy enough to start a nuclear war.
[QUOTE=MightyMax;34427199]Only problem with warring with iran is that they are crazy enough to start a nuclear war.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Iran could start a nuclear war,any of their attacks would be about as effective as throwing pebbles at a aircraft carrier. And Iran doesn't have any nuclear armaments and isn't developing any, the U.S knows that.
[B]"Is the global oil crisis inevitable?"[/B]
[QUOTE=Gundevil;34425052]War can be avoided if both parties would stop waving their dicks, sit down and talk.[/QUOTE]
The problem is,Iran is led by some guy with a retarded name(akgshodfigard? WTF?),and USA turned to a corporate-run corrupt country. Until those problems are solved,war is pretty much inevitable.
1. Let Iran have their nuke.
2. Stakes for war get too high.
3. Peace.
Edit: There is no justifiable reason to attack Iran and they don't have any reason either to attack anyone else.
If war with Iran will benefit the US, then it will be inevitable.
[QUOTE=PatrickT;34431574]If war with Iran will benefit the US, then it will be inevitable.[/QUOTE]
At first I wanted to say, "No, that's stupid"
But then I thought more about it
And conclude, yeah, you're probably right.... *sigh*
I never really got why the US wouldn't do what I consider common sense. A rouge state trying to achieve nuclear power for what they claim is legitimate medical and peaceful nuclear research. Why not just build the shit for them and monitor it like the Russians did with the powerplants they provided for Iran? I know the whole "Oh it could be used for bombs" statement but I doubt it would happen if we allowed them nuclear technology through our help and oversight.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;34431781]I never really got why the US wouldn't do what I consider common sense. A rouge state trying to achieve nuclear power for what they claim is legitimate medical and peaceful nuclear research. Why not just build the shit for them and monitor it like the Russians did with the powerplants they provided for Iran? I know the whole "Oh it could be used for bombs" statement but I doubt it would happen if we allowed them nuclear technology through our help and oversight.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Iran would have accepted US built reactors.
[QUOTE=sHiBaN;34430737][B]"Is the global oil crisis inevitable?"[/B][/QUOTE]
Well actually, they just found out how to turn seaweed into fuel.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34431822]I don't think Iran would have accepted US built reactors.[/QUOTE]
Well then another country could have done it for them. There was a quote from some official in Iran, that they would have happily let a country such as Germany, Russia, France or Britain build them a reactor. When no one would they decided to go in on their own.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.