Politics

Las guerras de desarme

Apr 10, 2012 Jonathan Schell

NUEVA YORK - El 13 de abril, Irán tiene previsto reunirse con representantes de China, Francia, Rusia, el Reino Unido y Estados Unidos -los miembros permanentes del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas- más Alemania (el llamado "P5 +1"), en una iniciativa para decidir el destino del programa nuclear iraní. Mientras tanto, Corea del Norte prepara supuestamente su tercera prueba nuclear, como una especie de banda sonora discordante a las conversaciones.

Si las conversaciones fracasan y se vuelve más probable la acción militar contra Irán, nadie debería sorprenderse. En la última década se inventó un nuevo tipo de guerra: una diseñada para evitar que un país obtenga armas nucleares u otras armas de destrucción masiva (ADM).

La primera "guerra de desarme" fue la invasión de Irak en 2003. Su objetivo, explicado claramente por la administración del presidente George W. Bush al Consejo de Seguridad y el Congreso de EE.UU., fue la destrucción de los arsenales e instalaciones de producción de ADM de Irak. Por supuesto, como se vio después, estos no existían y la guerra resultó ser un inútil derramamiento de sangre.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 1 Comments on this article

William deB. Mills Apr 14, 2012

Plenty of room exists for a reasonable compromise between the U.S. and Iran: Iran needs security, while the last remaining superpower can surely live with a secure Iran. To reach that positive-sum position, both sides will obviously have to move some distance from their preferred solution space, but both can easily do so and maintain "their way of life." Moreover, such a compromise also satisfies the legitimate national security interests of the Israeli people.

Nevertheless, Obama faces a real dilemma, though it is a political dilemma rather than a national security dilemma, because no common ground exists between the demands of the Netanyahu "Greater Israel" faction and the legitimate demands of any patriotic Iranian regime.

If Obama cuts a rational deal with Iran designed to resolve the nuclear problem, then it must include something for Iran and that “something” must surely address Iran’s legitimate right to self-defense. This is not difficult – U.S. guarantee of no attack plus support for the sale to Iran of Russian air defense missiles might suffice. A more reasonable deal would include diplomatic recognition of Iran as a country, termination of all efforts at regime change, and acceptance of Iran as a political counterpart like every other state on earth with which the U.S. would consult on regional issues.

The problem is that such a rational deal trading complete Iranian nuclear transparency for Iranian national security will take the sting–the humiliation–out and therefore such a deal WILL NOT SATISFY NETANYAHU. On the contrary, a deal that recognizes Iran’s right to exist, be safe, and continue to pursue its independent foreign policy, while frankly quite fine for the U.S., would be the worst defeat the Greater Israel faction has ever suffered.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/mHVcyhDes

Email required

Password required Remember me?

Facebook

Microsoft

Twitter

Las guerras de desarme

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Las guerras de desarme

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification