It's a mistake to think that Iran wasn't a crucial element in the Hamas Oct. 7 attack. I'm not saying that Iran took part in the specific planning or even knew about it in advance, but certainly Iran provided weapons and training and other support to Hamas. But there was also something else. Sinwar knew the Israeli psyche. He was not so stupid as to think that a few hundred or a thousand militants/terrorists would roll up the IDF and take Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Instead, he purposely designed the attack to outrage Israelis--knowing that this would result in a violent Israeli response that would cost much damage and loss of life in Gaza. His hope was that the destruction in Gaza would draw in Hezbollah and possibly the Houthis, Syria, and Iran itself who would then defeat a shocked and demoralized Israel. He greatly overestimated the capabilities and commitment of Iran and its proxies and underestimated Israel's, of course, but his plan did have a logic that depended on Iran and its proxies.
Diplomacy First is a good slogan and also a good principle. But it does beg the question of how to know when it's time to switch to another approach. Obviously, Iran can continue negotiations indefinitely if it wants. The only absolutely clear signal would be when Iran actually has a nuclear weapon, but then it's too late. Is there any signal or development before that point that would justify a change in your view?
It's a mistake to think that Iran wasn't a crucial element in the Hamas Oct. 7 attack. I'm not saying that Iran took part in the specific planning or even knew about it in advance, but certainly Iran provided weapons and training and other support to Hamas. But there was also something else. Sinwar knew the Israeli psyche. He was not so stupid as to think that a few hundred or a thousand militants/terrorists would roll up the IDF and take Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Instead, he purposely designed the attack to outrage Israelis--knowing that this would result in a violent Israeli response that would cost much damage and loss of life in Gaza. His hope was that the destruction in Gaza would draw in Hezbollah and possibly the Houthis, Syria, and Iran itself who would then defeat a shocked and demoralized Israel. He greatly overestimated the capabilities and commitment of Iran and its proxies and underestimated Israel's, of course, but his plan did have a logic that depended on Iran and its proxies.
Diplomacy First is a good slogan and also a good principle. But it does beg the question of how to know when it's time to switch to another approach. Obviously, Iran can continue negotiations indefinitely if it wants. The only absolutely clear signal would be when Iran actually has a nuclear weapon, but then it's too late. Is there any signal or development before that point that would justify a change in your view?