Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Toby Greene

GET UPDATES FROM Toby Greene
 

Iran Can Be Deterred? Let's Not Go There

Posted: 6/04/2012 00:00

Last week, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, was sounding pretty relaxed about the prospect of Iran getting nuclear weapons. He told an audience at the Council on Foreign Relations:

"Why should I be so concerned if I dealt with the Soviet Union, which had 4,000 weapons, and I remember being woken up one night at 3:00 a.m. to be told by my military assistant that we are under nuclear attack. It obviously didn't happen, since we're all here. (Laughter.) There would have been... 85 million Americans and Soviets dead six hours later... We deterred them. If we can deter the Soviet Union, if we can deter North Korea, why on earth can't we deter Iran?"

Setting aside the question of Iran, that sounds like a great Cold War story right? And of course, his interviewer asked for the full version. So Brzezinski went on:

"Part of my job was to coordinate the response if something like that happened, to notify the president. I had three minutes in which to notify him. During those three minutes, I had to confirm it in a variety of ways. And then he would have four minutes to decide how to respond. And then 28 minutes later, some of us would be dead and we'd be living in a different age...
I got a message from my military assistant, a general, who simply woke me up at 3:00 a.m. at night on the red phone and said, "Sorry to wake you up. We're under nuclear attack." (Scattered laughter.) That kind of wakes you up.... And he adds 30 seconds ago, 200 Soviet missiles have been fired at the United States...
But there were subsequent confirmations and clearly within -- well, within actually almost two minutes prior to me calling him on the third minute, it was clear that this was a false alarm. So I did nothing. I went back to sleep. (Laughter)"

The interviewer laughed. The audience laughed. You have to admit, it's a great story.
But then came the real punch line. The interviewer asked, "And if the confirmation had been a little late, could we have had a problem?" Brzezinski's answer: "We might have had."

Hang on. Wasn't the point of this story supposed to be that deterrence works? That a nuclear armed Iran can be deterred just like the Soviet Union was in the 'good old days' of mutually assured destruction? Somehow I don't feel all that reassured.

This 3am story depicts another reality entirely: a dangerous and unstable stand-off with the constant possibility for screw-ups and miscalculations to send the two sides to the brink. And the USSR and the US were supposedly rational actors, with diplomatic relations, emergency hotlines and the rest. Now imagine this kind of standoff overlaid with the rivalries, suspicions and hostilities of the Middle East.

During the Cold War, the West did not have much choice but to pursue a policy of deterrence, because the Soviets already had the bomb. But with Iran, we do have a choice. Iran is on the way to having a bomb, but with enough international pressure, it can still be stopped.

Just because the Cold War ended without disaster, does not mean it was destined to end that way. In Brzezinski's own words, "We might have had [a problem]". With regard to Iran, we should not be reassuring ourselves with the thought that a situation akin to the Cold War is an acceptable outcome.

When Iran meets with P5+1 powers to negotiate over its nuclear programme next week, it should be in no doubt that the West is determined to stop it acquiring nuclear weapons, and is not content to fall back on a strategy of deterrence. The economic and diplomatic pressure needs to be intensified, with all options kept on the table, to prevent Iran getting the bomb, and to avoid recreating the conditions of Brzezinski's 3am phone call.

 

Follow Toby Greene on Twitter: www.twitter.com/toby_greene_

Last week, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, was sounding pretty relaxed about the prospect of Iran getting nuclear weapons. He told an audience at the Council on ...
Last week, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, was sounding pretty relaxed about the prospect of Iran getting nuclear weapons. He told an audience at the Council on ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 88
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Fireslayer
12:31 PM on 04/09/2012
One cannot feel there is a greater stimulus for Iran getting nukes than the missile rattling of those on the right urging a strike against Iran. Under this kind of pressure they would be stupid not to heel.

Times like these make me wish no one in the Middle East had nuclear weapons.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
waldopepper
I'd tell you all about me if you were my friend.
07:34 AM on 04/09/2012
"...but with enough international pressure, it (meaning Iran) can still be stopped."

I ask the author what (other than theoretical) evidence can you drum up for this claim?

I contend Iran cannot be stopped because of the divergent ways that the US (and the broader international community) treated Iraq, and North Korea (whom you may remember were BOTH working toward a nuclear weapon.)

Iraq failed to get the bomb and was flattened. North Korea did get the bomb and is being feted. Being feted is preferable to being flattened. That unmistakably clear lesson is all the reason Iran needs to teach it that in the post Bush doctrine world they need the bomb. Oh and having significant American military forces on their borders (in Iraq and Afghanistan) goes a long way to help them make up their mind too.
04:51 AM on 04/09/2012
We don't want no stinking deterrence, we want war.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Freenation
02:35 PM on 04/08/2012
seems like as the war clouds are evaporating, likud proxies are getting nervous, after all they worked with Shaman to cast this spell for almost 10+ years...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stoopid American
Trooth, justice, and the American way ...
06:54 AM on 04/08/2012
Khameini has never been closer to losing his grip on power than he has been the past 24 months. Going to war with Iran right now would do nothing but reinforce Khameini's power, at the cost of merely delaying Iranian nuclear development.

Brzezinski is right. Iran is no threat to America. None. Zero. Never has been.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
waldopepper
I'd tell you all about me if you were my friend.
07:35 AM on 04/09/2012
Bingo.
photo
MajorKong
If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally
03:41 AM on 04/08/2012
I'm supposed to believe that Iran is such a fierce and implacable foe that they will attack instantly if they ever develop nuclear weapons, and that they cannot be deterred.

Yet on the other hand I'm supposed to believe that they're so meek and easily cowed that they will sit calmly on their hands and not retaliate when Israeli and/or US bombs start hitting their country.

They're somehow an "existential threat" and a pushover at the same time.

The funny part is, I think I remember hearing this before.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wwoody
Retired fishing for the truth.
05:18 AM on 04/07/2012
There isn't going to be a war this election year, but next year is a new day.
04:06 AM on 04/07/2012
Please, let's hear no more about the "crisis" of Iran building a nuclear bomb any day now. The Israelis and the U.S. military industrial complex have milked that story until it's bone dry. They were screaming like little girls about this five years ago, and they will still be screaming about it five years from now -- and the Iranians probably will be just as puzzled about all the fuss. The Israelis and the American war machine both need the Iranian nuke threat to justify their huge, wasteful military budgets. Iran is godsend to them; If Iran didn't exist, they would invent it. (Actually in a sense that's what they have done -- create a bogeyman image and cry wolf about that bogeyman constantly, for years.) I'm no fan of the oppressive and primitive Iran government, but Iran has not launched a war against anyone for a couple of centuries now. Israel and America, on the other hand, go to war periodically and usually for domestic political reasons.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cory Gudwin
examine thyself before blaming the system
07:23 PM on 04/07/2012
You may not believe Iran is intent on building a nuclear bomb
What matters is that Israel does believe this and has a plan to put an end to it.
01:28 AM on 04/07/2012
Dishonest writing, at its very worst. Absolutely dishonest.

There is no sign and no reason to believe that the West is "content to fall back on a strategy of deterrence." Absolutely none and the implication that there somehow is, that's dishonest.

And the West doesn't need to be told to intensify economic and diplomatic pressure, as if it's neglected to do so. Again, the implication that it has failed to intensify that pressure is dishonest. No one who follows the news can have escaped knowing about the escalating pressure on Iran.

And authors should no longer be published, and politicians should no longer be listened to, when they say "all options kept on the table, to prevent Iran getting the bomb."

If they mean pre-emptive military strikes against Iran, they are morally bound to say so and say so plainly. And if they mean pre-emptive military strikes against Iran, they are also morally bound to say how that will prevent Iran getting the bomb. It can, at best, delay Iran getting the bomb.

But the only kinds of pre-emptive military strikes against Iran that could *prevent* Iran getting the bomb are the kind that would destroy the nation of Iran.

And where exactly is the moral high ground of that position?

Mr. Greene, you are one dishonest and dangerous clown.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:30 AM on 04/07/2012
Despite the saber rattling I have yet to have anyone explain a scenario in which the US, Israel or anyone acting without the ability to occupy and pacify Iran gains by taking military action. Saying everything is on the table is a ridiculous bluster. We should not make empty threats that if acted upon create a worse situation. The author states we can't let it happen without explaining the costs to preventing it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stoopid American
Trooth, justice, and the American way ...
06:57 AM on 04/08/2012
Agreed. There is no conceivable surgical strike that could end Iran's nuclear program. It would take a massive military operation, involving boots on the ground and occupation. Such an operation would be a terrible bloodbath.
10:10 PM on 04/06/2012
Difference between an Islamist nut and a Zionist nut?

The Islamist nut wears the suicide vest themselves, the Zionist nut tries to talk somebody else into wearing it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wwoody
Retired fishing for the truth.
05:10 AM on 04/07/2012
LOL....But you're right.
photo
blutopie
no longer 'chosen'
09:52 PM on 04/06/2012
Tough luck for Israel - it looks like it's going to have to deal with Apartheid before it gets the US to attack Iran

Obama says 'AOK with Iranian civilan nuclear program! Whoo hoo!

Debkafile and our Hasbara Brigades are more than miffed - let me tell you that!

Obama’s signal to Iran
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-signal-to-iran/2012/04/05/gIQApVLDyS_story.html?hpid=z3

Must read article!

Washington Post's David Ignatius says U.S. president passed a message to Iran, through Turkish PM Erdogan, that he could agree to a civilian nuclear program if Tehran proved it was not building a nuclear bomb.

hararetz has an article up on it already:
Haaretz is reporting David Ignatius 'that U.S. could accept civilian nuclear program in Iran'

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/obama-signaled-khamenei-that-u-s-could-accept-civilian-nuclear-program-in-iran-1.423057

All their WWIII hopes and dreams are being dashed! Now Israel has to face dismantling of Apartheid not after 10yrs when WWIII simmers down - but now!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
gingershot
One man, one vote, from the river to the sea
10:12 PM on 04/06/2012
Outstanding!

This can be the big gamechanger for taking down the Israeli Lobby in the US and the Apartheid apparatus in Israel

Without Iran the Neocons and Israel have nothing...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cory Gudwin
examine thyself before blaming the system
07:27 PM on 04/07/2012
Israel has said it will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.
And it won't.
It has already leveled three other nuclear programs.
None has ever been rebuilt.
photo
MajorKong
If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally
03:37 AM on 04/08/2012
There is a logical fallacy that goes something like "I've done this dangerous thing X number of times and nothing bad happened. Therefore I'll get away with it the next time."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Stoopid American
Trooth, justice, and the American way ...
06:58 AM on 04/08/2012
"It has already leveled three other nuclear programs. None has ever been rebuilt."

If you think that Syria and Iraq are comparable to Iran, well, you just go right on thinking that.
07:53 PM on 04/06/2012
Thanks Toby for exposing the greatest apologist and appeaser of our time, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Don't forget that with the "most active state sponsor or terrorism" (now tell me if anyone doubts that) all they need to take the world hostage for some kind of ransom is to have uncontrolled access to enriched uranium, you know what I mean, a 'dirty bomb'. It would be foolish to compare the brutal regime of Iran that is terrorising its own people by daily public hangings with any other country in the world. The only real solution to Iran's nuclear problem is a nuclear free Iran as promoted by Iranian resistance and Mrs Rajavi.
08:04 AM on 04/07/2012
Right. So the sponsorship, training and arming of the MEK in Iran that murders Iranian scientists is not state sponsored terrorism in your view? Please, the pathetic hypocrisy of the western power regarding "terrorism" is seriously beginning to show.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
analyse this
Everything is temporary anyway
09:35 AM on 04/07/2012
There are more examples of US funded terrorism around the world for many decades and Israeli violence and brutality in the occupied territories than anything you can accuse Iran of.

History fail!
05:27 PM on 04/06/2012
"a dangerous and unstable stand-off with the constant possibility for screw-ups and miscalculations to send the two sides to the brink". Your "brink" assumes Iran, like the Soviet Union, can launch 200 nukes. If Iran launches its one or two (Maybe but unlikely) nukes, Iran's alleged "unstable" regime knows it will cease to exit within the next 30 minutes.
07:56 PM on 04/06/2012
Don't forget Ozarks that with the "most active state sponsor or terrorism" (now tell me if anyone doubts that) all they need for taking the world hostage for some kind of ransom is to have uncontrolled access to enriched uranium, you know what I mean, a 'dirty bomb'. It would be foolish to compare the brutal regime of Iran that is terrorising its own people by daily public hangings with any other country in the world.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:48 AM on 04/07/2012
"most active state sponsor or terrorism" I am not willing to accept that statement. Is support for the PKK sponsoring terrorism? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
01:15 AM on 04/07/2012
any radioactive explosion can, thru the released radioactive isotopes, be traced to its maker. If some alleged "terrorist" explodes a "dirty bomb", its manufacturer will be identified in less than 24 hours. When traced to your brutal regime in Iran, the country will cease to exist within 30 minutes after the finding and the mullah's know this. The only foolish people are those that push fear mongering to increase the price of oil over Iran maybe having a nuke.
05:21 PM on 04/06/2012
BICOM is an Israeli group pushing for war with Iran.
photo
blutopie
no longer 'chosen'
09:38 PM on 04/06/2012
I suspected that and just googled BICOM - it's a typical Israeli hasbara operation

Israel should be forced to join the NPT and put under tremendous pressure to join the 2012 Nuclear Free Middle East if it's so scared of nukes other than it's own
10:28 PM on 04/06/2012
correct.
My main worry is that it is our brothers, sisters and cousins who will die in an Israeli sponsored war.
At the end of the day both Israel & Iran are the same (their politics being dictated by religious fanatics) - its like watching a schoolyard fight between kids arguing over whether batman or spiderman has the best superpowrers - except one of the schoolkids already has 400 nukes & is whining that the other may get 1 at some stage in the future