Obama's Iran Fallacies

"I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Pendelton, OR, 5/18/08)

Obama's reasoning is fatally flawed in several respects:
(1) He overstates the relationship between size and the threat. Iran's size is not the problem....the fact that its leaders irrational actors is. Small rogue countries arguably pose a greater threat. By way of analogy: suicide bombers are individuals, yet they still cause great damage, and the danger is that there is no way to control them.

(2) He inappropriately compares Iran, Venezuela, Cuba to the former Soviet Union. However, the former Soviet Union acted in a principled and rational manner, even if its interests were opposed to those of the United States. If the Soviet Union signed a treaty, they would honor it. A promise from Ahmedenijad is worthless; you can't negotiate with a pathological liar and nut-job. Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. did not talk to Cuba...it spoke with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was the U.S.'s adversary, but it was its equal. The Cold War was not about the Soviets promising to annihilate Americans. It was about two competitive super-powers dividing the globe into two spheres of influence and backing up this division of the globe with a mutual threat of destruction if either of the two superpowers attempted to "check mate" and finish the game by taking over the entire globe.

(3) It was not talking to the Soviets that prevented nuclear war. It was mutually assured destruction: if either the United States or the Soviets attacked one another, both would be annihilated and this was to be avoided. With rogue, fanatic regimes, destruction is not a deterrent: Ahmedenijad would be proud to die in a nuclear war against Israel or the United States and he would not care how many innocent Iranians he took along with him. He is planning for the second coming of the Mahdi; the Soviets were atheists. How do you negotiate with a party who desires destruction, annihilation and cultivates a cult of death?