Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
educated guesses. So, given this picture, what would serious thinking and debate about Iran look like? Three initial guiding principles come to mind. The first is to have the courage to acknowledge what is weak and uncertain about ones own position. An argument can sometimes be rendered more, not less, persuasive by taking account of what is not known or contested. For example, we can support strong sanctions against Iran even if we admit that we do not know their ultimate affect on Tehrans decisionmaking. The preponderance of evidence suggests that pressure has altered the regimes calculus in the past, but we need not fake certainty that, this time, sanctions will soften rather than harden Iranian resolve. Second, to have our own position taken seriously we should be willing to recognize that which is legitimate or compelling in the position that we are opposing. In a challenge as thorny and charged as Iran, it cannot be that all the good arguments lean only to one side. Accepting the difficulty of an issue, whatever position one ultimately favors, does not betray a failure of conviction but a connection to reality. Advocates of an armed strike against Iran, for instance, should be able to acknowledge their opponents point that the consequences of military action cannot be easily predicted and may be far-reaching. Support for such a strike need not emerge from absolute confidence, but from a balance of risk assessment that admits the many dangers and conflicting concerns involved. The third principle is a little trickier. Following the first two principles alone can sometimes lead us to seek refuge in nuance and complexity, without actually offering proposals for how to proceed. We can become so enamored with the trees that we feel no obligation to offer our own way out of the forest. It is always easier to criticize a policy - especially if one makes a straw man of it - than to suggest a feasible alternative. Arguments would be more serious if striking down a position we opposed obliged us to
suggest our own approach and expose ourselves to the kind of criticism we readily direct toward others. In reading the views so vehemently expressed on Iran, I am reminded of the groundbreaking work of behavioral psychologist and Israeli Nobel laureate, Daniel Kahneman. His newest book, Thinking Fast and
doubt (not always on display, but embedded somewhere in most of us). Not so much self-doubt and humility as to induce indecision and paralysis, but just enough for a meaningful and serious debate.