Coercion--The Acceptable Use of Power

Nearly as soon as sanctions against Iran stemming from the nuclear program issues lapsed, the U.S. government announced new sanctions against Iran for ballistic missile testing.  Of course the Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif decried the coercive effort of the U.S. government.  Of course Zarif is right, it was a coercive act.  Welcome to big boy power politics Zarif.  

The use of power is best for any state when coercion is used.  Even better for any state is when they can get an ally or two to engage in coercive action against the targeted state (spreading the cost is a good thing).  For my two cents, we gave up too easy on the nuclear deal and will probably give up too easy on sanctions against Iran over their ballistic missile test program.  By the way, I agree with Zarif, Iran has a right to defend itself, Iran has the same sovereignty as every other recognized state.  But guess what, the U.S. also has a right to say we do not condone your testing and will try to stop you from testing.  The only question is whether or not enough real interest exists for the U.S. to exercise power in this particular situation.  Does an Iranian intermediate range missile system represent a threat to U.S. interests?  If the answer is yes, then we have cause to exercise power. 

Hostage/Prisoner Swaps

I am a realist.  Political behaviors are about power and security.  States (governments of the world) seek power because power provides security.  States seek power because power provides credibility and prestige.  When power has been maximized within the bounds of the current hierarchy of states, states will seek to maximize security based on held or perceived power.  Such maximization will lead to alliances and other balancing behaviors.  Also states seeking to maximize power and security will generally do so while seeking to limit the fiscal and political costs to themselves.

For my two cents, and given my view of realism, prisoner/hostage swaps for the holder of primacy in the hierarchy of power is a bad idea.  The Obama administration touts swapping 7 Iranian prisoners and forgoing potential prosecution of 14 other Iranians wanted for violating international sanctions for the return of 4 U.S. nationals held hostage and 1 U.S. national held prisoner as a winning gambit--and I for one say the Obama administration is wrong.  First we swapped prisoners, caught breaking the law, tried, found guilty, given sentences for 4 U.S. nationals who were held captive with no trials or sentencing made public and one U.S. national who had been tried and sentencing made public.  Second, by giving up much more 21 for 5, the U.S. does appear weak.  Third, such swaps encourage other states to seek U.S. hostages because they believe the U.S. administration will relent.  Finally, what else should we expect from an administration that gives up terrorists for a deserter and calls it a win.

Standards? What Standards?

Let me see if I understand things correctly.  Nuclear probes were supposed to be conducted to determine if the Iranian government was developing fuel and triggers for nuclear weapons at their nuclear energy/technology facilities.  The International Atomic Energy Agency has responsibility for overseeing the conduct of these probes.  The IAEA allows the Iranian government to conduct the probes and submit the reports of findings in these probes.  I am not making these statements up out of thin air, read this article. 

For my two cents how can you call these probes unbiased, fair, respectable?  In no other case of investigation has the investigated party ever been allowed to be responsible for conducting the investigation.  What a joke IAEA, what a joke international community.  If the question of nuclear proliferation is important, then own up to the responsibility and to holding the Iranian government accountable.  Accountability mean having outside oversight to ensure that the actor keeps the standards to which the actor has agreed.  If the Iranians agree to the standard of non-proliferation then they must allow the outside accountability or they have not truly agreed to be held accountable for upholding the standard.

The Iranian Deal

The multimillion dollar question today is whether or not the deal reached between the 5 permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany with Iran is good or bad.  As with all such questions the answer is always it depends, or compared to what.  For countries that stand to benefit from oil/petroleum related trade with Iran the deal is good.  For countries that could stand to benefit from potential lifting of arms trade embargoes related to Iran the deal is good.  For countries that are not considered to be "the great Satan" by those who really run the Iran the deal is good.

For my two cents, the deal is meh?  First, I am not really worried about whether such a deal is good for Israel, good for Saudi Arabia, good for (insert the name of any country here), other than whether or not being good/bad for that country is somehow a net bad for the population of the U.S.  Does this deal endanger Israel--maybe, and how does endangering Israel represent a net bad for the population of the U.S.?  Does this deal endanger Saudi Arabia--maybe, and see my previous sentence.  Does France trading with Iran endanger the U.S. population and hamper our economic development?  Does Russia trading with Iran endanger the U.S. population?

If the Russians and Chinese start engaging in arms trade with Iran, so what?  Supposedly we are not talking about a nuclear arms trade, but conventional systems.  Unless we believe we will need to invade Iran soon, how does Iran having current weapons systems endanger the U.S. population?  According to what I have read, whether the arms embargo will be lifted remains to be determined.

Second, and most importantly, I am not certain that the world became more or less dangerous regardless of whether or not this deal is accepted by all parties.  I remain unconvinced that this deal will truly slow/reduce/end Iranian plans to develop nuclear weapons.  I also remain unconvinced that a nuclear armed Iran is any greater as a threat to the U.S. population than say a nuclear armed Pakistan, a nuclear armed China, a nuclear armed Russia, etc.  "Great Satan" comments aside, do we really believe that the Iranian government/leadership would really be any more willing to use nuclear weapons against any population?  Maybe I am just an eternal optimist here, but even the former Soviets did not think using the nuclear arsenal was a good idea.

To me a more interesting question is the idea of the U.S. House of Representatives taking a 60 day period to look the deal over and say yes or no.  Seems to me if this deal represents a binding treaty, then the U.S. Senate has the Constitutional responsibility to ratify the treaty or not ratify the treaty, and the President of the U.S. has no say regarding the ratification process.  If this is not a treaty and the House says no to the agreement, if this is not done as the passage of a law saying no--which requires both the House and Senate to pass it--then how can the president of the U.S. veto the House decision, particularly since the law already exists giving the House the 60 day review period to say yes or no to this agreement?  I need to review the passed law that gives the House the review period in greater detail, because as I write this post, I honestly do not know the answer to this last question.