Apparently (the unlikely?) Bernard Kouchner is saber-rattling over the Iranian nuclear program. I wouldn't make too much of such statements. The most that can be said is that the French are signaling to the Iranians that they understand and are prepared for an American attack on a nuclear Iran sometime in the future (if all diplomatic avenues are blocked). That is, there won't be noisy protestations coming from the French - or, I suspect, the rest of the European Union - if Iran completes and tests an atomic bomb and America (or Israel, which I speculate is also likely) responds militarily.
The French don't want Iran to build the bomb and they recognize Iran as an actual threat (unlike Iraq circa 2003). This much is rather obvious; the position should surprise nobody. Nor do I think this is evidence for a "New France." Chirac, before the end of his presidency, had gone much further in suggesting that the force de frappe could be used against a nuclear Iran.
17 September 2007
Bombes en haut de Tehran?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
An actual threat? Why? It seems more likely to me that the quite different fates of Iraq and North Korea have reasonably led Iran to the conclusion that, Bush's rhetoric aside, getting a nuclear weapon is a good way to get the US not to attack you.
True enough, but I meant that the French see an Iranian nuke as an actual threat... I'm not sure what that has to do with Iranian motives for building bomb.
OK, but why do they think an Iranian nuke is an actual threat? Because they think Iran might actually use it? It would seem to count against this possibility if Iran's motivations are mainly defensive.
I'm not denying that a nuclear Iran would be bad news, but I do think that it would be less of a threat than the sort of Iraq- or Afghanistan-style chaos, with vaguely Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups running around, that could easily follow a Western attack on Iran.
Well, I doubt that France is actually looking to bomb Tehran back to the time of the Shah; they prefer a non-nuclear Iran and are signaling their growing discomfort. I wouldn't want to predict whether they would follow through on their implied threat (that they can see the situation leading to war and that they must be prepared for this) by actually supporting an American/Israeli attack.
Saber-rattling may be conducive to France's policy goals viz. the United States, but I'm not sure that it will be conducive to any of France's stated or implied goals viz. Iran, and may in fact be counterproductive to some or all of them. Besides, the trouble with bellicose rhetoric is that someone, somewhere, often starts to believe it.
Iran, by all internal accounts, will likely be united, and not significantly divided, by an American attack, at least in the short term. Also, Revolutionary Guard comments that US positions in Iraq and Afghanistan are within their "range" in the event of an attack are absolutely chilling. Combine Iranian solidarity with the kind of chaos that would suddenly reign in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and who knows where else, and you have the kind of war that isn't just dangerous for regional actors, but also for the global strategic balance.
What if the Russians decide to use the opportunity presented by a broader war to advance some of their strategic aims against NATO, and what if NATO takes a hard line? There are still thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at North American cities - I wish policymakers would remember that.
oh luke, this brings back memories of talking about nuclear war in the good old french horn section . . . i am not sure what i make of this whole situation yet. i need to keep reading hobokengroup to learn more!
ps why is there no link on your page to my wonderful blog?
'force de frappe' sounds like a setting on a french cappuccino machine.
Post a Comment