In a New York Review of Books essay, Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson make a detailed case against war with Iran. Tehran isn't the threat American hawks make it out to be, they argue—its proxies don't really dominate the region, its military is under-equipped, and its Navy is comprised of small boats—and yet the US has weaponized sanctions, usually an alternative to war, to push things to the brink. "It remains impossible to tell whether the administration actually intends to go to war, is merely engaging in coercive diplomacy, or is adrift in a sea of miscues. It may not matter. In a maelstrom of probes and provocations, strategic intention may give way to heedless reaction," they write. In recent days, tensions have centered on Iran's seizure of a British tanker, but troublesome as that development may be, Rodger Shanahan writes for the Lowy Institute's Interpreter blog that it's simply a tit-for-tat response to Britain's similar actions and that the UK should have seen it coming. |
No comments:
Post a Comment