What to do about Iran? Should we encourage a rebellion, impose sanctions, or prepare to attack? I’m guessing the answer may be “all of the above.” Take a look at this Op-Ed from today’s Washington Post, “3 Myths About the Iran Conflict.”
It makes a very good case that, despite the pain it will cause us, severe sanctions will hurt Iran more than they’ll hurt us. And there’s a powerful argument here that Russia and China will ultimately not block sanctions. The authors, Mel Levine, Alex Turkeltaub, and Alex Gorbansky, also argue that, within Iran, sanctions will hit Ahmadinejad’s political base much harder than anyone else.
So maybe tough sanctions really can be imposed. If so, sanctions will likely feed into the other two options. If sanctions fail because they’re blocked by Russia, China, or even the Europeans, then the military option will be easier to support. And if sanctions fail because the Western public, Americans included, won’t stand for higher oil prices, that will also bring on a feeling that the military option is all we have left.
If sanctions do begin to bite, it may be easier for us to provoke an internal rebellion. The problem with the internal revolution idea is that it takes too long. But a genuine economic crisis brought on by tough sanctions might just push Iran’s internal fractures to the point where a rebellion could succeed (especially with a little help from us).
A danger here is that, with sanctions imposed, the military option will be delayed until it’s too late by perpetual demands that sanctions be “allowed to work.” Unfortunately, we may not have much time to let them work. Still, the military option is far tougher here than it was in Iraq. So it may be that imposing quick and severe sanction is the only way to bring all three potential levers on Iran into play.