Israel Matzav

The Brookings Institution argues for war on Iran

The Left-leaning Brookings Institution may not have intended to do so, but it has made the argument for going to war to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Brookings argues - correctly - that sanctions won't succeed.

Unfortunately, the prospect of crippling the Iranian economy is a fallacy, and a dangerous one at that. A survey of the manifold measures already in place and their track record in moderating Iranian behavior speaks to the limitations of economic pressures as a means of altering Iran's security priorities and policies. Moreover, as even the most ardent advocates will privately acknowledge, the key prerequisites for a successful sanctions-centric approach—protracted duration and broad adherence—are almost certainly unattainable in this case. As a result, despite Iran's economic liabilities and its deeply divided polity, the recent embrace of sanctions by many in Washington represents a dangerous illusion. Economic pressure may have a role to play in persuading Tehran of the utility of dialogue, but as the primary tool of U.S. policy, punitive measures will not succeed in solving U.S. concerns about the Iranian regime and its behavior. If the Obama administration is going to blunt Iran's nuclear ambitions without the use of force, negotiations remain the tool of choice.

So why do I favor sanctions? Because I look at favoring sanctions as a litmus test of being willing to stop Iran at all. Most of those who oppose sanctions also oppose military action for the most part. Those who favor 'negotiations' are really saying, "we can't stop Iran, so let's learn to live with them having the bomb." That's the most dangerous possibility of all. See the post just below this one.

Besides, if Iran is hit by sanctions before they're hit (militarily) by Israel, they may be reeling and weakened.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:10 PM