On May 20 Iran launched a surface-to-surface missile with a range of 1,200 miles. Obama administration officials reckoned it a success. Such a missile is capable of striking Israel and other American allies, as well as U.S. bases throughout the Middle East.
Israel reacted with concern. Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said: "If anyone had any doubt, it is now clear that the Iranians are playing with fire. We know that the Iranians are developing capabilities of thousands of kilometers, that could reach the coasts of the United States. ..."The Iranian clock is ticking fast and it must be stopped."The American response, by contrast, was cooler. Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said: ''Iran is at a bit of a crossroads. They have a choice to make. They can either continue on this path of continued destabilization in the region or they can decide that they want to pursue relationships with the counties in the region and the United States that are more normalized.''
This is the language of confusion, capitulation, or both. Iran made its choice long ago. It wants nuclear weapons. Destabilization doesn’t frighten it. Indeed, Iran may welcome instability; instability often provides opportunities for aggressors. Normal relations are not what Iran seeks. It seeks to dominate. The only remaining question is, what will the U.S. finally do about it?
Negotiations work, in the sense of getting the other side to do what you want it to do, if you have something the other side either wants or fears. Obama needs to swiftly understand that the U.S. has nothing to offer that the Iranian mullocracy wants more than becoming a nuclear power. Therefore, Obama needs to focus on making Iran afraid of the consequences of pursuing that goal. There is no plausible substitute for the threat of military action—and if the threat doesn’t deter, then the use of the military. Clarity and decisiveness, not squeemishness or delicacy, are necessary.
Comments