Follow us on social

Screen-shot-2021-12-17-at-2.40.54-pm

Threatening war with Iran won't save the nuclear deal

Prominent hawks want Biden to put military strikes on the table in JCPOA talks, the latest sign that Washington is allergic to diplomacy.

Analysis | Middle East

Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept has a good piece responding to a letter published today by Michèle Flournoy, Leon Panetta, General David Petraeus, Dennis Ross and a few others, urging Joe Biden to break the nuclear deadlock with Iran by issuing military threats. 

I am quoted extensively in the piece. I am including my quotes below, while also adding a few additional thoughts. Here’s what I told Jeremy:

The exaggerated faith in the miracles that U.S. military threats can deliver is not limited to any one party in the United States but is intrinsic to the establishment religion that American security is achieved through global military hegemony.

Rather than being the solution to the crisis, the military threat the U.S. poses to Iran is a key reason why the Iranian nuclear program has expanded. The more a country is faced with military threats, the more it will demand a nuclear deterrence.

Donald Trump’s military threats and broad economic sanctions are precisely why we are in this mess right now. To believe that more Trumpian conduct by the United States will break the nuclear deadlock bewilders the mind. 

Trump’s exit from the deal and the lack of confidence that the United States will stay in the deal beyond 2024 has profoundly undermined the value of American promises of sanctions relief. The Iranians are hesitating largely because they do not believe that the economic benefits the U.S. promises will be forthcoming. No amount of military threats will change that fundamental weakness in the U.S. negotiating position.

Having said that, I do believe — as I hinted at in my recent piece for MSNBC — that the fear of war was an important factor for the parties getting serious about diplomacy in 2013. Both the United States and Iran believed that war would be the outcome if talks failed. This helped sharpen the choices of both sides and helped muster political will — again, on both sides — that enabled the compromises manifested in the JCPOA.

But here’s the difference from what Petraeus et al are calling for: Obama didn’t issue any military threats. Rather, the structure of the situation was such that it was clear to all that war was the likely alternative to a deal. 

Today, as I explain for MSNBC, the structure is different. Issuing (empty) threats will not change that. It will only make diplomacy more difficult. 

So, shouldn’t the situation be changed so that the parties once again have no choice but to muster the necessary political will?

No, it should not for a very simple reason: We got lucky last time. It could just as easily have ended in a disastrous war.

Neither side can control the situation. De-escalatory options are imprecise and unpredictable, to the extent that they even exist. The idea that we can dial things up and down at will without the other side having a say, without factoring in the risk of the other side miscalculating, is simply irresponsible.

We should not constantly lower our expectations of leaders and diplomats. It is fundamentally reasonable to expect that leaders on both sides can and should muster the courage to strike a reasonable compromise without a disastrous war hanging over the heads of the American people and the peoples of the Middle East.


Photos: DOD public domain
Analysis | Middle East
hive mind
Top photo credit: Khody Akhavi/DALL-E

Debate: Federal funding fuels failing foreign policy hive mind

Washington Politics

This is one perspective in a Responsible Statecraft ‘debate’ over the value of federal aid for ‘soft power’ programs, including regional studies, think tanks, USAID, and academic exchanges. See a counterpoint by Adam Ratzlaff, here.


keep readingShow less
Alliance of Sahel States
Top photo credit: A man with his face and body painted, celebrating the Alliance of Sahel States, is seen at the Festival sur le Niger, also known as Segou'Art, as it occurs in the wake of Mali and its neighbours Niger and Burkina Faso leaving the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS), in Segou, Mali February 6, 2025. REUTERS/Aboubacar Traore

Bad timing for an African trade war

Africa

The decision by the military-led Alliance of Sahel States to impose a 0.5% import duty on goods from the nations of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has added a new twist in the rift plaguing the West African bloc.

The tariff, which exempts only humanitarian aid, threatens to upend free trade and provoke retaliation, effectively creating a trade war within the region at a time when Africa’s exports to the crucial U.S. market face new challenges.

keep readingShow less
Pentagon
Top Photo: An aerial view of the Pentagon, in Washington, District of Columbia. (TSGT ANGELA STAFFORD, USAF/public domain)
An aerial view of the Pentagon, in Washington, District of Columbia. (TSGT ANGELA STAFFORD, USAF/public domain)

Software is eating the DoD: Brought to you by the Atlantic Council

Military Industrial Complex

In 2011, Marc Andreessen penned an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal proclaiming that “Software is eating the world.” Andreessen argued that every industry — even national defense — would have to embrace the “software revolution” sooner or later.

Now, Andreessen’s acolytes just have to convince the Pentagon – so long as it’s their software the department buys. Last week, the Atlantic Council launched an effort in partnership with dozens of defense industry executives — several of whom are funded by Andreessen’s firm a16z — calling on the Pentagon to usher in an era of “software-defined warfare,” a term which includes artificial intelligence and cloud computing.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.