What exactly is the Iran strategy?

The Yorkshire Ranter puts the matter succinctly, with a minimum of ranting:

So, yes - Mottaki is quite right. Enough for the description of things as they are, though; what about things as they should be? Daniel Levy, writing in Ha'aretz, is sensible. He points out that the US and Israeli strategy towards Iran is hopelessly confused; the aim is left open between regime change and nonproliferation. The chief motivation for investing in nuclear technology is to prevent regime change, but no-one is willing to offer the regime security in return for nonproliferation; so why would they stop proliferatin'? And if they don't stop, where is your regime change then?

We faced a similar problem during the Cold War, on a much larger scale. We hated Soviet totalitarianism, and we were scared to death of nuclear war. Therefore, even the most bellicose Cold Warriors, such as John Foster Dulles, backed off the idea of "regime change" in Eastern Europe until the Soviet empire collapsed under the weight of its own corruption and stupidity. Better to have a sane, stable, albeit evil regime in Moscow than a bunch of frightened apparatchiks convinced that the apocalyptic confrontation between communism and capitalism was about to occur.

However, the Bush Administration isn't exactly trying to reach a detente with the mullahcracy, unless there's some very sub rosa diplomacy happening behind the scenes. So what exactly is the strategy here?

The Ranter also points out, as other national security bloggers have, that the United States hasn't deployed enough firepower to the Persian Gulf to make even a minimally credible military threat. So what's the point of the saber-rattling, exactly, if the scabbard is empty? Do top Administration officials think that the Iranian government isn't paying attention? Do they want the public confrontation to help cement the regime in place?

Comments

[md]

You would think shipping in 30,000 additional troops next door in Iraq, stationing a second aircraft carrier in the nearby Persian Gulf, detaining 5 mid-level Iranian diplomats in Iraq, and getting Tehran's key financiers - China and Russia - to vote in favor of two UNSC resolutions against Iran would constitute signficant leverage for the US that could be used in favor of reaching (at least) the conditions under which diplomacy could begin.

Our diplomatic strategy at the moment has consisted of the most stringent efforts to isolate and pressure Iran. How Iran is managing its threat perception in light of US strategy - particularly when one considers the fact that this same strategy succesfully sunk us into a grueling conflict in post-war Iraq - is the million dollar question.

[Steven Taylor]

I have gotten to the point where I am not sure that "strategy" and "Bush administration" really have much in common,

And, I will confess to having voted for him.

[Kingdaddy]

Isolating Iran is fine, as long as there's a step #2. That's what I don't see.

[md]

But "step #2" meaning what? More deployment of strategic assets to the Gulf region? Direct diplomacy with Tehran? In the hopes of achieving what?

Frankly, I don't think we know what precisely it is we want from the Iranians in the end, save not producing a nuclear arsenal. It's all the little steps involved in how to get there that aren't adding up. At most, I think our situation in Iraq is doing more to undermine the credibility of our military deterent threat vis-a-vis Iran than actions we aren't taking.

[ajay]

It's all aimed at a domestic audience. Acting tough towards Iran keeps the mob happy. Its actual effect on Iran is irrelevant.

[MattyP]

I'm not sure which mob you're referring to. I can't see threating further military involvement in the region makes anyone happy, except the guys and gals selling beans and bullets to Uncle Sam.

[Barry]

Mattyp, it's the 25% hardcore, plus a media which has swallowed administration to an amazing degree (considering the Iraq war run-up).

[beats by dre it]

This is all very new to me and this article really opened my eyes. Thanks for sharing with us your wisdom.