On the face of it, it seemed a little odd. Back in 1994 Newt Gingrich’s
pollsters were testing his proposed Contract with America when they stumbled
across a puzzling inconsistency. When voters were asked if they thought that
benefits should not be given to lone parents who refused to work, they
strongly agreed. But when asked if those parents should be denied benefits,
they were much less favourable. The policy appeared the same, the support
for it very different.
What the pollsters were witnessing was actually something quite common — the
finding provided an example of what academics call the Status Quo Bias.
The way that the question was posed presented voters with two different views
of the status quo. If the status quo was for benefits to be given to people,
voters didn’t want it to be denied. If the status quo was for benefits not
to be given to people, voters did not want it to be given.
The status quo bias pops up again and again in politics. When voters in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania were presented with identical choices in a ballot on
car insurance law, both voted heavily for opposite policies, both sticking
to the status quo in their state.
Behind the status quo bias is this — people tend to regard harmful actions as
being worse than equally harmful inaction. They overestimate the risks of
acting and underestimate those of failing to act. For instance, some parents
fail to vaccinate their children because they prefer to leave them exposed
to the fairly large risk of disease than to the tiny risks involved in a
vaccination they have actively procured.
And here’s another example — our policy towards Iran. Hardly a day goes by
without an exposé of US plans for a military strike on Iran. The risky
nature of such a venture is emphasised. The danger of failing to act
receives far less attention. We believe that Iran, a fundamentalist state
with a history of sponsoring terrorism, is six months away from being able
to enrich uranium on an industrial scale. We think it is determined to
possess nuclear weapons and will get its wish within a few years. And yet we
are far more scared about acting than we are about not acting.
The first reason for our preference might be called the Dodgy Dossier Dodge.
Because intelligence reports suggested that Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction and we were unable to find any, the idea of acting against Iran
seems obscene. What if the Iranians are telling the truth when they say that
their nuclear programme is not military?
This is a reasonable question. It’s hard to know about weapons of mass
destruction. For years we grossly underestimated Saddam’s nuclear programme
before new intelligence revealed the truth. But why would we prefer the
optimistic view of Iranian intentions, when the consequences of being wrong
are so great?
One reason is the Equivalence Argument. You hear it all the time in the Iran
debate. How can we lecture the Iranians, when we are upgrading our own
weapons system? Why shouldn’t they have nuclear weapons if we do? Yesterday
the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei,
made this point. And it has force, if you can’t see any difference between
the Government of Iran and those of Britain and the United States. But I
don’t regard this as a very difficult distinction to make.
If Iran succeeds in obtaining nuclear weapons it will embolden it to pursue an
aggressive foreign policy, supporting terrorist activities and
antidemocratic forces around the globe. It is incomparably more dangerous to
peace and democracy than the modernisation of Trident.
A more understandable reason for the status quo bias on Iran is what might be
called the Clock Illusion. In his superb book The Persian Puzzle,
former Clinton adviser Kenneth Pollack talks about Iran policy involving two
clocks — the regime-change clock and the nuclear clock. The aim of policy,
some say, should be to speed up the regime-change clock and topple the
mullahs, rather than slowing down the nuclear clock.
But, as Pollack points out, this is hardly realistic. Regime change in Iran,
although unpredictable, still seems further away than the acquisition of
weapons. In any case, the history of attempts to change the regime in Iran
from the outside has not exactly been encouraging.
Which leaves the last — but still the most potent — of the reasons for the
Iranian status quo bias. There is an almost universal belief that nothing
can be done. And I don’t believe that this is true.
It is often argued that the war in Iraq has made action in Iran impossible.
But the truth is different — the truth is that an invasion of Iran would
always have been a stupid idea. Iran is four times the size of Iraq with a
population three times the size. Its mountain ranges would aid the
insurgents and the Iranian people have a history of fiercely resisting
foreign interference.
But there is a much stronger case for military strikes against nuclear
installations. Naturally, the Iranians would be enraged and there would be
massive international condemnation. But the upside is that the Iranian
nuclear clock could be slowed or even stopped. The only really good argument
against military strikes is that we can’t be sure where Iran’s nuclear
facilities are. They’ve proven adept at concealing such things.
Because of this uncertainty, and because aggressive action should always be
avoided if it can be, such military strikes are a last resort. But I cannot
understand those who, like The New York Times, insist on clarity
about our intentions or those like Jack Straw who, as Foreign Secretary,
repeatedly said that military action against Iran was inconceivable. Why
would we want the Iranians to know that? Why wouldn’t we want them to fear
that strikes may result from their policy? Isn’t uncertainty and lack of
clarity a potent weapon?
History suggests that it is. On a number of occasions since the 1979
revolution Iran has pulled back from an aggressive policy because it feared
either military retaliation or serious sanctions. Yet now we are afraid to
threaten it with either.
Earlier this week Russia suggested that the launch of the Iranian nuclear
reactor at Bushehr could be delayed because Tehran had fallen behind with
its construction payments. US financial sanctions are clearly biting. Yet
European nations still refuse to join in. For goodness sake. What are we
waiting for?
Ask yourself, is Iran dangerous to the world now? Are they espousing the expanssion of thier Islamitism? Have they promoted the destruction of Israel? If your answer is yes , think what they will be like with a real weapon, nuclear weapon.
Larry Sampson, LINCOLN, USA
I agree with the authour that something can be done to stop Iran. I believe that the policy of speeding up the 'regime-change clock and toppling the mullahs' as well as 'slowing down the nuclear clock' would be possible. The former would be best done by supporting Iran's opposition coaltion, the National Council of Resistance of Iran led by Maryam Rajavi. And the latter by placing more effective sanctions on Iran. Only then will we be giving the right signal to the people of Iran that we are behind them and only then can we expect a popular uprising.This will in turn ensure democracy for Iran and peace in the region.
Mandy, London,
I think you have overlooked an essential factor and that is: The Iranian people and their Resistance force.
You rightly say that comparing the failure of proof in Iraq to Iran's situation where threr are ample proof of a nuclear programme, as a cover for nuclear weapons, is just another excuse for doing nothing.
It was Iran's main opposition group, the National Council of Resistance of Iran that first exposed Iran's nuclear programme in 2002. This which was later confirmed by IAEA alerted the world to Iran's nuclear programme.
Iranian regime admits that, 95% of Iranians do not want this regime. They want change. They want a democratic, peaceful Iran. So it is nonsence when some claim Iranians support Iran's nuclear programme which would in effect cement their despotic rule
As Mrs Maryam Rajavi, the leader of Iranian Resistance said in her speech to European Parliament , the best solution for Iran is neither appeasment nor war.The only solution is Iranian people and their Resistance.
Mahmoud , London, UK
Mr Finkelstein, what chutzpah! Not only do you regurgitate lies about Iraqi weapons - lies which were thoroughly debunked before the country was attacked - you don't even mention Israel and its provocative nuclear, chemical and biological arsenal. Do you, perhaps, believe Israel has some sort of 'divine' right to possess, and if emulated, use these monstrous weapons? Lastly, you opine 'The only really good argument against military strikes is that we can’t be sure where Iran’s nuclear facilities are. They’ve proven adept at concealing such things.' Mr Finkelstein, there are many 'good' arguments against military strikes. One of the more powerful is the heartless inhumanity of it all. Do you hope your readers have learnt nothing from the Iraqi catastrophe?
Joe Baker, London, UK
L Taylor says:
>"if Iran succeeds in obtaining nuclear weapons it will embolden it >to pursue an aggressive foreign policy"
>
>What, like America?
No, not like America. Considerably worse than America.
William McIlhagga, Bradford,
To the comment,
The Iranians don't have a history of intervening in other countries? What hole in the desert have you stuck your head in? They are rabid interventionists - and unlike our interaction, which is focused on free trade and bringing democracy and regional security - they actively promote violence, instability, breakdowns in the ability for different people's to interact. It's ridiculous to even harbor the thought of any kind of moral equivalence between the UK and US, both democratic powers whose economic policies benefit their peoples, including the poor, both home and abroad - and an Islamist fascist regime who've slowly starved freedom in their society, and are the no. 1 exporters of terrorism (Iraq was no. 2).
Military action may prove difficult, but that won't make it any less necessary unless the international community binds together to force change in Iran. European betrayal will ultimately force a US/UK response.
Daniel Canales, Point Pleasant, USA/NJ
"if Iran succeeds in obtaining nuclear weapons it will embolden it to pursue an aggressive foreign policy"
What, like America?
L Taylor, Lincoln, England
I agree with Henry Percy. The status quo is that the Western democracies expect to control, utilise and consume the lion's share of the world's resources. We regard it as our right to exist in a wasteful and decadent way, and we expect the rest of the world to supply us, on our terms, with whatever is necessary for us to do this. Is it any wonder that many in the less-developed world regard us as parasitic?
Why should people in less well-off countries be content to put up with this? Why should they kow-tow to a world order that is specifically and unmistakeably constructed to allow the current state of affairs to continue?
Maybe we in the west should realise that the most appropriate way forward is not to seek to use force to perpetuate the injustice, but to accept that it is an injustice, and to seek to restructure world affairs on an equitable basis, rather than a selfish one.
Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK
Iran would pursue an aggressive foreign policy? When has it ever done so? Why should it start now? In truth, a nuclear Iran would be safe from invasion, but would have very limited capacity to harm Israel, UK or US. Remember MAD? Really, sometimes the excuse-for-war-mongers become VERY silly indeed.
snodgrass, Margam,
Hi,
I have sent my comments about this article twice. First time was early this morning when there was no other comment. second time was 15 minutes ago. I still can not see my comment here. Why have you not published my comments. Are you censoring my comments? I see from comments you have published that nearly all of them are in favour of the regime and against this article. my comments was mostly in support of this article. Are you only publishing the comments that are against the points raised in this articl?
I need a answer from you.
Mahmoud, London, UK
For God's sake, are we so blind that we cannot see what lies ahead? Yes, Israel will be bombed. The Iranians want to destroy them. But, they also hate the west. Does the next bomb to go off in America or England have to be nuclear for people to wake up?
The main difference between the governments of Iran and the US and Britain is that Iran will use their nuclear weapons.
Excellent article - Thank you for your vision.
Bob Woodyard, Dallas, Texas
Its just a matter of time befor Iran feels the sting from the US and or Isreal.If they don,t think we mean business,they should look off there coast. The US will be in Irac for a long time and any future Pres of the US knows this. Iran is now looking for away to save face lets hope they do?,befor Pres Bush leaves office Iran will be delt with.
Charles Greulich, Scottsdale, Az
The Status Quo bias - driven by the notion that harmful action is worse than harmful inaction - is so powerful that it finds a corollary in moral philosophy. Many distinguished philosophers have argued that there is a fundamental ethical distinction between actions and omissions, even if they have identical consequences and the agent had perfect knowledge of those consequences.
We see this bias in our attitude to euthanasia (we find the idea of "allowing someone to die" more morally palatable than "administering a fatal dose") as well as a whole range of other medical, sociological and political problems. It is, perhaps, based on an underlying (and irrational) but deep-seated form of fatalism: we believe that when "nature takes its course" things will work out fine. It is human "interference" that, somehow, mucks this up.
It could be argued that this bias is one of the two most dangerous problems in contemporary ethics. It is certainly applicable to Iran.
Matthew Syed, London,
Interesting article; This American thinks that with the sway of Liberal British & American politicians taking place, we're just going to have to let history repeat itself. Israel can be sacrificed for peace in our Regions, and British & American cities can be nuked because we represent such a failed civilization...
Bill Sanford, Grand Rapids, USA
I wonder if you'd be so bold if your neck was on the line and you had to do the dirty work...........
Doug Bates, St. Albans,
Well considered article.
How many dozens of "carrots" must Iran reject before it becomes clear that Iran will accept no restraints on its nuclear ambitions? How many times must this regime and its surrogates attack us on the periphery and threaten to eliminate us entirely before we take them at their word?
Today, we still have the ability to prevent our elimination. It is still possible to prevent the world's worst weapons from coming under control of the most murderous men.
Once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, we will live with the constant nighmare of trying to stop terrorists before they can detonate a nuclear device in the heart of London, New York, Washington, Tel Aviv, or Paris.
If we fail, and millions die, the survivors will scream, "Why didn't you do something before it was too late."
bently elliott, New Canaan, Ct... USA
Iran still has a chance to avoid being bombed. First anounce that it yes does need atomic energy, but only for electricity, and therefore renounces own uranium enrichment factories, and second declare that yes it wants to be a constructive, not a destructive regional power.
walli, Murcia, Spain
Quite amazing to me, an American, to read the comments to this article. It appears that Israel really has become the perceived "problem". That a functioning democracy, surrounded by dictatorships and anarchy is the fulcrum for all Middle East problems. As if Israel's acquiesence to all Palestinian and Islamic demands would suddenly turn the Middle East into paradise. Most of the comments here remind me of what I read in the 60s and 70s about Eastern Europe, "The Workers Paradise" and the goodwill and benevolent intentions of the Soviet Union. The convoluted logic, the preening anti-american rhetoric, the juvenile prattle of decrees and moral equivalence. I prefer the words of Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn, perhaps your readers have heard his name, who worte," The Wolfhound is right, the Cannibal is wrong". Perhaps your English sophists can deduce the logic in that truth.
Chris Veith, Miami, FL, USA
Its all a smoke screen to hide Iran's failing economey.
Give the people of Iran a chance to get rid of this government. It will take years before bombs are developed.
Gavin, London,
No doubt, the invasion, and subsequent mishandling of Iraq was folly. No doubt the existence of nuclear weapons in the hands of belligerent western powers makes Iran desire them itself. No doubt George Bush will go down as a divisive and, ultimately, ineffective president.
But to imagine that the leader of a country, with nuclear weapons already, who is limited to two terms, and answerable to his people, is more of a threat to the world than an unelected elite of mullahs bent on possessing nuclear weapons, and answerable only to their interpretation of a mystical book, is self-delusion of the most egregious kind.
Even if it is justified, many people’s intemperate hatred of George Bush has coloured their whole outlook on international politics. It is not only intellectually lazy but also quite dangerous.
Mark Lewis, London,
I see Danny, that you avoided the elephant by neglecting to mention Israel. Isn't this predominantly what this is about?
Many Western pundits fail to mention that nuclear weapons have been outlawed by decree of the Ayatollah Khamenei. They also fail to mention that with Iran's desperate population crisis (most of the population is under 30 and illiteracy rates are 86%), their failing economy and sinking oil reserves, a nuclear energy future makes perfect sense when the price of oil is guaranteed to rocket in the coming decades.
I understand the concern about Iranian backed fundamentalist Islamism in Lebanon and Palestine, but bombing a country even further into L'áge de pierre with not help Western interests in the long term.
Chris, London, UK
Ah yes. Iran would be a threat to Britain? I think not. What you actually mean is that Iran might be a threat to Israel and that British soldiers should be sacrificed to make Israel safer. I think not.
Mod, London,
Years in business taught me to be very suspicious of any proposal to which the Status Quo Bias is adduced as an argument for change!
On the one hand, we're told about secret, hardened nuclear installations which are unknown to the inspectors. On the other, we're told these can be taken out with a single strike. On the one hand, we are fed spectre of an Iranian government distributing small nuclear bombs to terrorists. On the other, the risk of terrorists going into a power-vacuum Iran to simply take material for dirty bombs is completely discounted.
One thing we can be reasonably certain of: any strike against Iran will be incompetently planned and executed. Until the US can demonstrate that it can do better than it has done recently, I hope that diplomats speaking on my behalf will be stressing to it that next time, its only coalition partners will be Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK
You say, If Iran succeeds in obtaining nuclear weapons it will embolden it to pursue an aggressive foreign policy. . . Where did you get this idea from? America and Britain, of course. It could be argued that you are looking at the status quo from the wrong end of the stick. The status quo has been of America and Britain pushing around these smaller states under their huge military superiority (forget the nuclear weapons), so your basic argument would support Iran doing something about this and acquiring it’s own nuclear insurance policy. It takes two to tango. If Britain and America do not share a primary responsibility in these ‘problems’, how come they are always involved in them in contrast to most other countries? Iran has no history of imposing itself on other countries. America and Britain do. The Bush administration is a far greater threat to the world in nuclear terms than Iran could ever be. I think you need to re-evaluate your status quo.
Henry Percy, London, UK
Isn't it clear to Mr Finkelstein and his ilk that perhaps the surest insurance against ill-thought invasions such as that meted out by the hasty, impulsive, rash and short-sighted Bush Administration on Iraq is to, ironically, acquire a nuclear capability.
Besides, how can any rational and objective human being fault Mohammed El-Badarei's assertion that it will be difficult to discourage other countries from seeking nuclear weapons, if America and other existing nuclear-armed countries don't take action, as required by several conventions and treaties, to disarm and significantly reduce their nuclear stockpile.
That the whole situation reeks of hypocrisy and double standards is glaringly obvious.
Ayo Odelusi, Wallington, UK
Poor old Daniel does not realise that wars are never won pre-emptively...at least not in the minds of the public and media. It is almost inevitable now that nuclear weapons will become the weapons of choice as they proliferate. But for Urenco the nuclear menance could probably have been contained in the Security Council, but it is highly likely that such weapons will be used as the world stumbles into yet more disasters.
Humans prefer self-delusion and to bury their heads in the sand with nuclear war as simply something that happened rather than anticipated. Distractions abound and frankly the state of European politics is so riddled with self-doubt and failure that their own role in nuclear proliferation is kept quiet.
TomTom, Leeds, England
Its the usual voices going on about Iran being a threat to the West isn't it - Melanie Phillips, Michael Gove. These are the same people who argued for war in Iraq. As troops start coming home, and wasted dead British soldiers and their families pay the price for our folly, you would have thought that these voices in the media would have learnt their lessons,
Bils, London, UK
The analysis is highly flawed. What evidence is there that Iran sponsors terrorism or anti democratic forces around the globe? They support Hamas and Hezbollah, two organisations who's violence is aimed soley at Israel. Iran's ambitions are merely regional and have more right to shape it neighbourhood to its interests then the British and American outsiders.
Another mythis the supposed irrationality of the Mullahs. So far, they have never attacked a soveriegn state (unlike the British and the Americans) and have sought to avoid confrontation with the US as best as they can. That doesn't sound like a nation willing to see itself destroyed, which is what an Iranian nuclear attack on another nuclear power would bring about.
If the Iranians develop nukes I say tough - it's about time the Western establishments learn to accept a world where they can't dictate the actions of other nations according to their whims.
Raashid, London, UK
"But why would we prefer the optimistic view of Iranian intentions, when the consequences of being wrong are so great?"
If the US does attack Iran, the consequences of being wrong, ie Iran really has no WMD, is worse.
"If Iran succeeds in obtaining nuclear weapons it will embolden it to pursue an aggressive foreign policy, supporting terrorist activities and antidemocratic forces around the globe"
Uhm, like the Americans foreign policy? Like their support for the non-democratic Pakistan?
Daniel exhibits the typical neo-imperialist tendencies that have driven Bush and American republicans to blindly follow an erroneous foreign policy with little to no understanding of the situation.
Pete, Cov,
Be sure to check your change when someone tries to sell you the moral equivalence argument. At best, it means 'let us get away with doing bad things because we're nicer guys than the other lot'. That only works when we really are nice guys. When we in the west (and particularly in the US) ignore international law, unilaterally tear up treaties, and indulge in the wholesale abuse of human rights, we should not be surprised if the world counts us amongst the bad guys.
Have many people suggested that replacing Trident is an issue? I do not think that it breaches nuclear proliferation treaties. What does breach them is America's current, open development of new forms of nuclear weapon. The Bush administration is trying to enforce treaties while at the same time flagrantly ignoring them itself. That is not equivalence. That is plain double standards.
Peter Andrew, London, UK
Iran is not six months from enriching Uranium to weapons grade. The P1 and P2 cascades as provided by AQ Kahn would separate adequate isotope for one or perhaps two devices only within a 2 to 5 year range. A test detonation would then be required to guage yield and efficacy of neutron reflecting lenses. Further alterations would then be made to the device.
Though Iran's pursuit of nuclear capability is alarming to contemplate, the time frame implied above is not correct.
C.Stevcek, Brno, Czecho
I cannt believe the level of hysteria about this issue. The only country in the world to possess nuclear weapons and use them is the same country that persists to bomb anything that doesnt comply with its own ideology. Talk about democracy, its a complete fairytell. One rule for us and different rule for another. Lets not kid ourselves with talk of fairness and equality, when history shows the real action is very one sided. Moderate views, seem to be something of a by gone era, when there was plenty for everyone. Disable one countries ability to develop weapons is hardly addressing the problem behind the issue. Would be much better to allow middle eastern countries to build their own stability, through their own means. At least then a lasting solution might be sought. But hardly realistic, given western economic stability is strongly influenced by the regions resources and control is more about who has the bigger stick and occupation.
Richard, Epping, England
The lack of intelligence and disposition to talks leads to the activity man knows best: war. Fake proves, obvious lies and a great deal of superior arrogance always marked the European (and US-American) policies. Of cause we have the right to upgrade our nukes, these Third World places have no right to produce electricity. This is our policy!
And that military prisoners in an occupied territory have no rights, matches very well view.
Humanity is doomed!
Joachim Kappert, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal
Perhaps. But you presuppose that we will know when Iran comes close to acquiring nuclear weapons. Isn't the whole problem with Iran the uncertainty about exactly what their nuclear programme is, what it is doing, how large it is and so forth?
Secondly, Israel is such a highly pro-Western, and more importantly, pro-American country that it is also flawed to say that Israel 'dealing with' Iran woudl prove any better a solution than the US or Britain taking a strong position against Iran. Surely, the US would be drawn into the conflict in any event?
Nick, Solihull, West Midlands
But Iran won't ever develop a nuclear bomb will it? Because if it ever gets close Israel will bomb into the Stone Age. Job done.
Bill , Sheffield,