In his Wednesday column, David Ignatius has a cautionary tale about conflict with Iran that is chilling in its implications for the future. He asks if the situation with Iranian nuclear ambitions is analogous to what President John F. Kennedy faced with the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and if there are any “lessons” that can be learned from our experience in facing down the Russians during that crucial 13 days in October.
I do not believe much in “learning” from history in this fashion. History’s broad sweep precludes such lessons drawn from specific events such as the Missile Crisis, a once in a generation confrontation between superpowers. The currents that make up the ebb and flow of historical forces also have changed radically since that time as the forces of democracy, globalization, and capitalism are in the ascendancy – the exact opposite of what was occurring in the early 1960’s as the Soviet model was sweeping across Africa, establishing a toehold in Asia, and even being dallied with in Latin America.
Kennedy saw the challenge which is why he thought Viet Nam so important. Increasing American advisers from Eisenhower’s 850 to an eventual total of 16,500 before he died, Kennedy saw Viet Nam as the last chance for the west to establish a credible deterrent to the expansion of the Soviet model in the third world.
And we know where that led.
Ignatius describes a valuable atmospheric surrounding the Missile Crisis; the way Kennedy reached his decision:
Kennedy’s genius was to reject the Cuba options proposed by his advisers, hawk and dove alike, and choose his own peculiar outside-the-box strategy. He issued a deadline but privately delayed it; he answered a first, flexible message from Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev but not a second unyielding one; he said he would never take U.S. missiles out of Turkey, as the Soviets were demanding, and then secretly did precisely that. Disaster was avoided because Khrushchev believed Kennedy was willing to risk war—but wanted to avoid it.The Bush administration needs to be engaged in a similar exercise in creative thinking. The military planners will keep looking for targets (as they must, in a confrontation this serious). But Bush’s advisers—and most of all, the president himself—must keep searching for ways to escape the inexorable logic that is propelling America and Iran toward war. I take heart from the fact that the counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Philip Zelikow, is an expert on the Cuban missile crisis who co-authored the second edition of Allison’s “Essence of Decision.”
The key here is “willing to risk war but want[ing] to avoid it.” There seems to be a general belief on the right that the Iranian hierarchy cannot be negotiated with, that they are not rational human beings and would, in fact, welcome death and destruction as it would then meet the conditions for the re-appearance of the so-called 12th Imam who would unite Islam and conquer the world.
I have no idea if this is true. I am not completely dismissive of the idea as many on the left seem to be nor do I necessarily think the entire Iranian government has gone of the edge of a cliff and lost touch with reality. That’s what makes this crisis so unpredictable. President Ahmadinejad uses rhetoric the likes of which have not been seen on the international stage since the days of Adolph Hitler’s thundering orations threatening to wipe Czechoslovakia “off the map.” At that time, Neville Chamberlain dismissed Hitler’s apoplectic rants as political sops to the militarists in the German government. (Chamberlain remained blissfully ignorant of the fact that Hitler was the #1 German militarist until it was far too late).
Since we’re talking about a nuclear Iran, we can be vouchsafed no such luxury of miscalculation. And given the recent history of US-Iranian relations, prudence dictates that we take Ahmadinejad at his word and plan accordingly. Herein lies the fallacy in Mr. Ignatius’ historical parallel with October, 1962: With Russia, we were dealing essentially with a state that was as concerned about its survival as we were. At present, we are not so sure that the leaders of the Iranian theocracy share that concern.
For that reason, some see military action as inevitable. The reasoning goes that under all circumstances, the Iranians must not be allowed to make a nuclear weapon because they do not recognize “traditional” nuclear deterrence strategies. In order for Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) to work, both sides have to fear destruction. It is an open question whether the theocrats in Iran fear any such possibility.
Of course, this won’t stop the diplomatic dance at the United Nations or in the capitals of Europe where America will go to seek allies and partners in sanctions and in military planning. But perhaps it might be useful to recall one aspect of the Missile Crisis that, above all others, may have led to the defusing of tensions between the superpowers; the unwritten promise by the United States government that it would not seek to overthrow the Castro regime. In short, a guarantee of Cuban sovereignty.
Kruschev wrote in his memoirs that the reasons he placed missiles in Cuba in the first place was to redress what the Russians saw as a strategic imbalance between the two countries and to protect his client from a Bay of Pigs repeat. The missiles were removed only after Kennedy promised privately to retire the obsolete Jupiter missiles based in Turkey (which were as provocative from the Soviet point of view as missiles in Cuba were to the United States) and a further guarantee that the Americans would not invade or use a proxy army to overthrow Castro. Later, Bobby Kennedy reasoned that such a promise did not include attempts to assassinate Castro, which continued until at least 1965.
Would such a Quid Pro Quo work with the Iranians? Could we guarantee the sovereignty of the Iranian state in exchange for intrusive inspections by the IAEA and a promise by the mullahs not to enrich uranium?
All would depend on whether or not the leaders of Iran are indeed rational and fear war with the United States and the destruction of their regime. And much would also depend on the IAEA, an organization that would have to prove itself to be more than the nuclear enabler it has been in the past.
A tall order, that. And before we could even contemplate such an agreement, there would have to be what diplomats call “confidence building measures” in the interim, something that at this point, seems to be beyond the capability of both countries. Clearly, only a trusted third party could initiate such a dialogue. And given the pariah state of the Iranian nation, such a list would be very short indeed.
There will come a point where direct negotiations with the Iranians will become inevitable. It would help considerably if when that occurs, those negotiations have a chance of succeeding. For that to happen, nothing – including a military option or our willingness to guarantee Iranian sovereignty – can be taken off the table. For when thinking about war with Iran, it is best to remember that unforeseen consequences inevitably follow from conflict.
And those consequences may be so harmful to our interests that we may wish we had explored every option to end the crisis peacefully.
8:41 am
george bush, donald rumsfeld, and condoleeza rice are the only men with the guts, the genius, and the cahones, which are the necessary prerequisites needed to deal with this incredibly complex and dangerous situation, which may ultimatly provide them with the vindication for a war not only against them, but also with Iraq. The only quid pro quo scenario that could possibly work would be one that is between a new regime that would result from an overthrow by the Iranian populace themselves of the mullahs which could result as they are humiliated by the use of tactical nuclear devices(TND). Any decision made, clearly must come before the critical elections in November. Indeed, the course of action required will be dictated in concert with our military generals in the field, who will be responsible for not only the conduct of these operations, but also for the exit strategy, which will include the rising up of a free Iranian society, with the help of radio communications from the west to help advise them.
9:46 am
A very interesting discussion Rick, but I think a couple of points need to be fleshed out:
The the abyss Kennedy and Khruschev were peering into was more than war – it was the total annihilation of their respective civilizations and a catastrophe on a planetary scale (and possibly the destructon of the human race). I think both realized that. In my mind, the situation we have with Iran is a few orders of magnitude less meaningful than the issues we faced in the missile crisis. First of all, assuming Iran does develop nukes and they actually use them against us (which is debatable), America will survive. Iran will not if we feel particularly vengeful afterward. The balance of power between us and Iran is equal in no single area – but in the early 60’s the USSR was our equal in many areas.
2nd, I don’t see what a guarantee for their regime would bring. We are not actively trying to topple the Iranian government like we were with Cuba. We are not talking about invading simply to end the regime, and that’s not something we’ve ever considered in a serious way. So the Iranians would see such an offer for what it is, which is not much, since it just preserves the status quo.
3rd, too many people think Ahmadinejad speaks for and represents all of Iranian society and government. He does not. We need to keep in mind that the Iranian people are the most pro-American muslims on the planet. We also need to look at the Iranian government, which is factional. It’s also still a republic even though the religious leaders have a veto over everything. For all these reasons and more, comparisons with Hitler and Cuba do not apply in my view. We need to tread carefully to prevent Ahmadinejad from becoming more powerful by isolationg the pro-west factions in Iranian society. We don’t want to confirm to everyone his views on the west and the US and have those views become the majority in Iran. What we really need is some creative thinking to unleash all the hidden pro-americanism at the Iranian grassroots level.
4th, there may be elements of the Iranian government and society that have no fear of nuclear annihilation – that point is debatable – but I don’t think that is a majority view. If Ahmadinejad or some other radical leader wanted to plunge the Iranian nation into annihilation, then I think cooler heads would calmly put a bullet in his head to prevent that.
5th, the Iranian street is nationalistic. They feel it is their right to have nuclear technology, and according to international treaty, the do have that right. Enriching uranium like they are doing is not against any international law or treaty. The problem lies with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which allows enrichment for nuclear fuel, but doesn’t provide specific safeguards against making HEU. It’s the fatal flaw of the NPT and it would be nice we supported amending it to close that loophole.
9:49 am
Now that’s a good idea…BUT – it presupposes that the real goal of Iran is not to be overthrown.
It is other.
As they insisted again this morning.
Since 1979 they have been saying just one thing.
I do the the respect of taking them seriously
They believe. They have faith. I take that seriously.
If the foreign policy objective of Iran is to destroy Israel, and Hassan Abbassi (Iran’s “kissinger”) is correct about the west producing risk averse men and societies, what good is promising them we won’t invade them? It will give them the security they need to push their goals even further, and solidify to them the objective truth of their foerign policy theories about the USA.
Now we an have the ‘so they destroy Israel, so what’? discussion. But the best way to do that may be to hurt us badly, and force us to withdraw support …it shouldn’t be too hard to imagine such a scenario if you believe we won’t risk Harrisburg for Tel Aviv.
10:33 am
Isn’t it ironic that we are facing missiles from China that have the latest guideance systems that were developed in the U.S. and sold/traded to China for campaign contributions by the Slick Willie administration and now we have Iran. We are facing Nuclear weapons designed by the U.S. and either sold or given to Iran is some grand scheme called ‘Operation Merlin’, again by the Slick Willie administration. Maybe when millions die at some of these people’s hands using equipment sold to them by the ‘same idiots’ history will not look to kindly on the most immoral presidential administration in history. I wonder how many of the ‘Retired Generals’(aka 90’s kiss ass promoted generals) calling for Rumfeld to resign were involved in trading away/selling the most advanced nuclear equipment in the world. Now they need a little CYA to divert attention from their failures.
12:15 pm
Scrapiron, what the heck are you talking about? The only administration that sold anything to Iran was the Reagan administration. And it was Reagan who pulled out of Lebanon when Iran bloodied our nose by killing all those Marines, which is the 2nd worst terrorist attack against Americans. That withdrawl was the first case where America cut and ran when facing islamic radicals (Somalia being another notable case).
Don’t get me wrong, Reagan was a great president in many ways, but his anti-communist outlook blinded him to the threat of radical Islam and because of a well-documented lack of foresight among many administrations (going back to Reagan and even Carter), we were left with Afghanistan and an intact and strong Iran. How might things be different if we had been more selective about who we armed in Afghanistan or actually cared what happened there after the USSR folded? Or what if we had actually tried to topple the Iranian mullahs in the early years (the 80’s) when the revolution was still fresh and weak? Reagan didn’t care about the mullahs because they were anti-communist, just like he didn’t care about the radicals in Afghanistan for the same reason.
Reagan did great things during his presidency and certainly will be remembered as one of the great Presidents. But don’t forget his failings or those of other republicans simply because of your blind hatred of Clinton.
12:44 pm
Rick. It’s Adolf Hitler (not Adolph)
1:04 pm
Iran wants nukes? I say we give it to ‘em. 20 min flight time fast enough? Seriously, doing nothing is worse than doing something. Before you know it, they’ll have enough plutonium to fry the region and since they’re mentally unstable, all the more reason. It’s like giving a chimp an uzi. There is no good outcome here.
2:17 pm
Andrew:
In response to your points in order:
Kennedy and Khruschev may have been facing an abyss but what we could be facing here is a new “Dark Age”. Imagine what a few weel place nukes would do to the world as we know it – international markets, monetary systems, health organizations, the very fabric that our lives are built around.
I agree with you here that no garuntee for the current or any regime will affect the situation.
Ahmadinejad may not be speaking for the people in the street but he will have at his disposal the equivilent of “the football”. It doesn’t matter how pro-US the people are.
I do not believe these people have any concept of what nuclear annihilation means much less fear it. We (for those of us over 30) grew up under the nuclear umbrella. It was in one way a shield and in another way a constant threat that silently affected our daily lives. Books, treatises, movies and television showed us the potential effects of a nuclear showdown and if struck fear in our hearts. Same for Iran? I doubt it.
And lastly their nationalistic fervor is the one thing that will add to the very flames of rhetoric spewing from Ahmadinejad. Watch the people as he speaks – they agree with him.
On a personal note – I take his threats, especially regarding Israel, seriously. And to take it one step further, I believe he has to wonder if there would be any retribution directed at Iran if they were to put a bomb to Israel. All you have to do is look at how the world sees Israel. Could he believe he could get away with the unthinkable?
11:21 pm
There are serious problems with this argument. First, Kruschev personally witnessed the horrendous massacre of Ukrainian peasants under Stalin’s “collectivization” omlete-making (to quote that ever-insulting Sulzberger Stalinist war crimes apologist Walter Duranty) path to a future paradise that looked more like Hell than Heaven!
Thank God that we’ve had the likes of Jack Kennedy and Nikita Kruschev
in our past to show us how serious disagreements can be resolved. Maybe we’ll find the same kind in the Bush Administration, but we definitely won’t find them in the current leadership of the Democratic Party!
12:12 pm
OK, Bush has done many negative things … put on the backs of the American citizens..no need to list the top 20…he needs to be impeached NOW…he is as bad as that nutcake in Iran for whom he wants to use nuclear weapons…what an outrage! His whole gang ought to be put out to pasture or that prison in Cuba…Quit lying for that administration and get with the program..IMPEACHMENT NOW!!