I think this is a terrible mistake. A short thread.
First, there is no upside to threatening force at this late date. The Iran nuclear deal appears very much to be dead and I strongly suspect that the Iranians are en route to nuclear latency/opacity. Threatening the use of force is unlikely to alter that outcome in my opinion.
One problem with nonproliferation wonks is that we warn US officials about the dangers of a certain course of action, but after they do it anyway, we advise about how to mitigate those dangers. We call it being "policy relevant." People who treat drunks call it "enabling."
Here's the reality as I see it. When Trump killed the JCPOA, he destroyed the constituency for a diplomatic settlement to the nuclear issue in Tehran. Biden maybe had a little window to fix it, but pissed it away. Iran will now likely build a bomb. This is called a "consequence."
I am aware that many US officials are unaware of the concept of a "consequence", having failed steadily upward by cheerleading the carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, yes, there are consequences to our policy interventions, even if other people are the ones to suffer them.
And, if there were any hope of heading off an Iranian bomb, overt shows of force would seem as likely to play into the hands of those who want Iran to build the bomb instead of those who want to stop it. Not that I think many Iranian officials remain in that latter group.
And then there are our own politics to worry about. I am old enough to remember when legions of gullible Democrats authorized the use of force against Iraq on the same argument that threat of force would provide leverage to get the IAEA back into Iraq.
If we don't want to use force, we shouldn't flirt with the idea of using force. You can't shake hands with the devil and say you are only kidding. It simply legitimizes the idea and undermines one's credibility later, when it turns out its not going to be the war we wanted.
The Iran nuclear deal was a miracle. Then Trump smashed Humpty Dumpty to pieces. I don't know who needs to hear this, but there is no magic wand or "coercive leverage" that will put him back together. It's over. Take the L.
What are we going to do? Invade Iran like we did Iraq? That's insane. The President, the Congress and their legions of staff should consider the possibility that it's time to stop asking other people to die for their errors of judgement.
Iran is probably going to build a bomb like North Korea did. And we're going to live with it just as we do North Korea -- with deterrence. A lot of us hoped to avoid this, which is why we supported the JCPOA and warned that killing it was a mistake. But no one listens to me.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Jeffrey Lewis

Dr. Jeffrey Lewis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ArmsControlWonk

16 Oct
No one should be surprised by orbital bombardment, although the glider is a nice touch. The Soviets deployed an orbital bombardment system in the 1970s. This is an old concept that is newly relevant as a way to defeat missile defenses.
I wrote a short thread last month on why I think orbital bombardment makes sense for Russia, China and North Korea -- especially if gliders mean they can improve accuracy.
But really, I've been banging on about orbital bombardment for several years now. It's obvious: The US put a missile defense system in Alaska to defend against missiles coming over the North Pole. What did you think Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang will do? Just give up?
Read 5 tweets
10 Oct
"I am concerned that using a dead drop location your friend prepares makes me very vulnerable."

No shit, dude.

justice.gov/opa/press-rele…
"I must consider the possibility that l am communicating with an adversary who has intercepted my first message and is attempting to expose me. Would not such an adversary wish me to go to a place of his choosing, knowing that an amateur will be unlikely to detect surveillance?"
Read 5 tweets
6 Oct
Glad to see the Biden Administration resuming the Obama-era practice of being transparent about the size of the US nuclear stockpile. A thread.
Funny story. George W. Bush dramatically reduced the size of the nuclear stockpile -- but never took credit for it because the stockpile size was secret. He cut the stockpile in half and then by a further 15 percent.
Bush's record on reducing the size of the US nuclear stockpile is excellent. But no one knew it. There were even stories that he had slowed the pace of dismantlement, stories that turned out to be false. The moral to the story is that doing the right thing isn't always enough.
Read 15 tweets
21 Sep
Still waiting on the transcript of Kendall's remarks, but I don't think we should dismiss the possibility of countries developing orbital bombardment systems, including China and North Korea. A short thread.
The Soviet Union developed a "fractional orbital bombardment system" (FOBS) in the 1960s. The Soviets deployed this system from 1969-1983. @historyasif wrote the best article on Soviet FOBS.
static1.squarespace.com/static/5ef8124…
(A word about the "F" in FOBS. The Soviets added "fractional" because, as a party to the Outer Space Treaty, it agreed "not to place in orbit around the earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons..." It's a polite fiction.)
Read 13 tweets
17 Sep
I've noticed that some people are expressing skepticism that the DPRK could have acquired or developed a 1,500 km-range land-attack cruise missile. TL/DR: It's not 1978 any more.
A short thread.
Starting in 2014, North Korea showed ship-based copies of Russia's Kh-35 cruise missile. In 2017, North Korea test-fired a land-based variant of the Kh-35, called the Kumsong-3.
The Kh-35, also known as the Kharpunski, is a fairly capable 130 km-range cruise missile developed by the Soviet Union in the 1980s. It used the R-95-300 turbofan engine. (The engine produces 300-400 kgf of thrust and weighs 95 kg).
Read 9 tweets
16 Sep
North Korea appears to be expanding the size of the uranium enrichment plant at Yongbyon by about 25 percent. @DaveSchmerler, @Joshua_Pollack and I think this may relate to growing weapons requirements for highly-enriched uranium.
"US officials acknowledge," @ZcohenCNN writes "those developments could signal plans to increase production of weapons-grade uranium, according to two sources familiar with the situation."
cnn.com/2021/09/16/pol…
Why now? In January, Kim Jong Un announced that "continuously push ahead with the production of super-sized nuclear warheads." That means thermonuclear weapons --and secondaries require a *lot* of HEU.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(