Impulse and Consequence

Many years ago when I was Interim Leader of the Liberal Party I had discussions a couple of weeks apart with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Peres of Israel. They did not travel together. Mr Netanyahu gave me a strong lecture about the existential threat from Iran being more important than the issue of two states and the rights of Palestinians, a message he has continued to repeat. He made it clear that he was prepared to “go it alone if necessary” in bombing Iran to deal with the nuclear threat. When I raised this approach with President Peres he said “so we bomb Iran on day one. What happens on day two ?”

President Obama clearly decided that he would rather negotiate a deescalation of Iran’s nuclear plans, with the monitoring support of the UN agency responsible for monitoring nuclear activities around the world, the IAEA. In his first term President Trump blew up those efforts, and allowed Iran’s nuclear capacity to grow dramatically. A few months ago, the US and the Israelis joined in an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, and they were declared “obliterated”.

Apparently an obliteration only lasts for a while, but in addition to an obliteration of Iran’s nuclear ambitions is being added another objective, announced with due decorum (baseball hat) from Mar a Lago by President Trump - “regime change”. But only regime change from a great distance and a great height. It will, according to the Trump doctrine, be up to the people of Iran to “rise up” and change the regime. 30,000 Iranians have been killed trying to do just that.

Both Mr Trump and Mr Netanyahu have domestic tails to wag. That might explain the impulse. But in a world where consequences matter, it is hard to see through this current fog of war the “plan”. No one wants to see a nuclear armed Iran. But as recently as last week negotiations were underway in Geneva, with further “technical discussions” planned for Monday. There are many other ways of mounting effective pressure.

I am always reminded of the three rules of Roy Cohn, Joseph McCarthy’s acolyte and Donald Trump’s mentor. First rule is “attack, attack attack.” Second rule is “never apologize”. Third rule is “whatever happens, declare victory.’ We saw this strategy at work in the State of the Union speech. We shall see it again in this military adventure with the Israelis against Iran. Whatever happens in Iran, victory will be declared, just as it was in the last “obliteration”. Just remember that in the attack on Iraq, on land, sea, and air, hundreds of thousands died, and went on dying, in a brutal war. In the early days of that conflict, the US declared “mission accomplished”. That was untrue. The cost of that ill conceived attack is still being paid.

Canada needs to work effectively with many countries to ensure that sound policies are pursued in the interests of both peace and security. This is no time for “ready, aye ready”. This is not an argument about whether Iran is a dictatorship or a country that poses a serious challenge to the peace and security of the world. This should be a discussion about the most effective, and enduring, ways to achieve common objectives.

The conduct of foreign and military policy is not about listening to our “impulses” or our “instincts”. It is about constantly understanding the consequences of our behaviour, and what others can do in response to our own decisions. It is not about how we all feel on day one. It is about how we’ll feel as time goes on. As Shimon Peres said “so what happens on day two ?”