Netanyahu is right about "red lines" for Iran

If you follow Iran's nuclear developments or Israeli politics even remotely, you'll have heard about the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's fight with US President Barak Obama over setting "red lines" for Iran's nuclear program. Netanyahu says he won't be able to relax or feel confident that the US will really prevent Iran from developing a bomb unless these "red lines" are drawn firmly by the United States. The US (and not just Barak Obama) refuses to do this.

Red lines are basically lines someone sets that tell an opponent "if you cross this line, X will happen." They're a way of communicating exactly what actions an opponent can expect in order to deter something very specific. In the case of Iran, the red line might be enrichment to a certain level, for example. The reason Netanyahu wants them is twofold: 1. They would make it clear to Iran that it cannot go beyond a certain point of no return or it will suffer consequences; 2. They would force the United States to make a specific commitment to act that would be hard to back down from. Basically, Netanyahu would like the US AND Iran to be backed against a clear wall in order to minimize uncertainty about the future.

This post is not about whether red lines are a good idea. But Netanyahu is right about their effects, which is precisely why the US refuses to set them. Obama does not want to create a situation where the US would be forced to act. He wishes to retain the US's freedom of maneuver. Netanyahu is therefore also right, I think, that the US is not really committed to stopping Iran from getting the bomb no matter what. If it would be too dangerous to stop it, US policymakers may privately be thinking that containment would be less bad than the threat of yet another war in the Middle East, one that would likely only delay Iran's bomb-making (while making Iran more determined to get one). They look around and note that some pretty belligerent foes (think North Korea) have yet to ever use nuclear weapons on their enemies.

As for me, I think Iran having a bomb would bad on several levels. Two examples are an arms race in the region and a more "leaky" anti-proliferation regime, as Iran might help its friends to develop nukes as well. It would also reduce Israel and the US's freedom of maneuver in the region as they would be deterred by Iran's bomb. This, I think, is the number one reason why Israel, above all, fears it. I too, though, am unconvinced that we should to anything and everything to stop Iran from getting the bomb. That doesn't mean I've decided, it just means that other outcomes might actually be worse and attacking Iran needs to be a definite last resort. Netanyahu and Obama, then, must agree to disagree for now. If Romney becomes president, I'm not sure that would change.

Free Speech and Self-Censorship

The recent and ongoing protests (including the killing of the US Ambassador in Benghazi, Libya) in the Muslim world against the US because of an anti-Muslim amateur movie originating in America have brought the topic of free speech back to mind.

Everyone can remember the last time this happened (the cartoons). A few people I know remarked that it was a travesty because we have the freedom of speech and at least one asserted that Western government sshould have rallied around the cartoonists to support their right to free speech.

That sounds laudable. But is that really the issue? It feels bad if we discover that newspapers are self-censoring, not publishing things their readers would like to see. But is self-censorship akin to a loss of the right to free speech?

It certainly does mean people have to watch what they say, which is unfortunate in many ways. Still, you have to watch what you say in polite company and around children, too, or there might be protests in the "society" you find yourself in. Freedom of speech does not mean you will be free from the consequences of that speech. The government may not arrest you for saying something that rubs someone else the wrong way, but that person might very well kick you out of his house--as is surely his right, too.

We need to remain vigilant, of course, but in the US at the very least, free speech is very well protected, and the Supreme Court tends to err on the side of allowing speech when it is debatable. So we're free to say what we want, and we should say what needs to be said when it's important, but we also have to weigh consequences and benefits: Was this video important? Were the cartoons? Are they important enough to countenance violence, outrage, and diplomatic issues? That's a different topic entirely, and it doesn't really have that much to do with free speech.