Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Give Iran the bomb? Reading Iran's apologists

By Jan De Pauw - posted Thursday, 27 September 2007


But the crucial question remains: if the country is not what it is, will it be what it is not? And who will tell? Where are the benchmarks? Rather more tempting than mere negative dialectics, is Barnett's pragmatic take on things. In his view, the United States should engage Iran as its regional security partner, and extend responsibility if it wants the country to act responsibly.

Iran is not interested in overthrowing the West and does not harbour a millenarian fantasy of regional, much less global, revolution. It is guided by what he calls the calculated cynicism that nukes are for having, not using. Barnett, with others, proposes a so-called grand bargain, whereby Iran gets the bomb, diplomatic recognition, the lifting of sanctions, the opening of trade and removal from the axis of evil, in return for supporting a two-state solution in Palestine, stability in Iraq, cessation of support for terrorist groups, joint pressure on Syria; last but not least, Iran should establish diplomatic relations with Israel, and formally acknowledge the country's right to exist.

The pragmatism inherent in Barnett's reading is tempting. Here, acceptance of Iran's nuclear ambitions is not based on intangibles such as goodwill, or voluntary suspension of disbelief, or finger-pointing, you-had-it-coming vengeance, but on the rather clearheaded realisation that some clocks can not be turned back. It is better to work with what's coming, than to hold on to what is slipping, the message seems to be.

Advertisement

Only Barnett, too, takes as his point of departure, the conviction that Iran is not to be trusted. Iran will get the bomb, despite its consistent claim that its intentions are entirely energy-related. So, if the country can not be trusted to start with, how will a grand bargain fare?

Besides, the idea of a grand bargain as such presupposes a unified decision-making process by Iran's ruling elite, that we know to be non-existent. Iran's establishment is marked by infighting and power struggles in the seat of an elaborate system of checks-and-balances.

Rafsanjani's regained prominence thanks to his recent appointment as chairman of the powerful Assembly of Experts is indicative of the delicate mechanics of power in Iran. Rafsanjani's opposition to Ahmadinejad is well known. It may spark strong competition between an absolutist and a pragmatic wing of the establishment that might very well kindle the fire of millenarianism inherent in Shia Islam. There's no telling what domestic role the field of foreign affairs might then have to play ...

All of this makes for a regime that is marked first and foremost by a high degree of unpredictability. Unpredictable is not synonymous to irrational. Yet, a responsible leader better think twice before acquiescing and giving the bomb away.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

69 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Jan De Pauw is a Belgian Federal Diplomat, posted in Berlin. He holds an M.A. in Philosophy and an M.A. in International Politics. He is an independent writer, and you can find more of his work at his blog Trabecular Meshwork.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jan De Pauw

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Jan De Pauw
Article Tools
Comment 69 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy