Article: What To Do About Iranian Nukes
By Ivan Eland
September 19, 2006
In June, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China offered to provide goodies if Iran ended its nuclear program and threatened economic sanctions if it did not. Negotiations would not start until Iran suspended its enrichment of uranium. Although this was a bold take-it-or-leave-it deal by the six powers, Iran left it.
The Iranians, knowing they have the upper hand against a befuddled Bush administration in several respects, have sporadically and belatedly offered to freeze uranium enrichment, but have refused to do it as a condition for negotiations. But negotiations have been held anyway. At the same time, the United States has pressed Russia and China to fulfill their agreement to impose sanctions if the Iranians balked at the original incentives package. Any sanctions, however, are likely to be weak because both Russia and China have economic interests in Iran. The sanctions being talked about are a ban on exports of nuclear components to Iran and a ban on travel for Iranians working on that country’s nuclear program. Iran already has an extensive illicit network in the West for smuggling nuclear components, so a formal ban on Western sales is unlikely to have much of an effect. For security reasons Iran does not allow its nuclear scientists to do much overseas junketing, so the travel ban will be mainly symbolic too.
The only sanctions that would have any real effect on Iran would be in the oil sector. But Russia and China would oppose these vehemently. And so would the nervous Republicans trying to get re-elected in 2006 and 2008 amid already high oil prices. Any petroleum sanctions against Iran, one of the world’s largest oil producers, would cause the world price of oil to escalate. In addition, the history of economic sanctions indicates that, over time, loopholes and smuggling eventually greatly diminish their effect. The Iranians know this well because they have been under some form of economic sanctions ever since their revolution alarmed the West in the late 1970s. Thus, Iran is not exactly quaking in its boots over the new threat of Western sanctions.
Iran also knows that if the United States launches a military air strike against its nuclear facilities, it could retaliate against the United States by causing much trouble in two areas of substantial Republican vulnerability—Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran could encourage friendly militias in those countries, now supporting their respective governments, to go into violent opposition. The Iranians have many friends in both places who are hostile to the United States. Although Iran would also be harmed by this action, it could close the Strait of Hormuz to petroleum shipments coming out of the Persian Gulf, thus causing the world oil price to skyrocket. But although seemingly irrational, an Iran under U.S. attack might choose to retaliate in any way possible.
Although the Bush administration would have a stronger hand in negotiations with Iran if it hadn’t become involved in the Afghan and Iraqi quagmires, it can’t cry over spilled milk. In addition, haggling over only temporarily freezing the Iranian nuclear program in order to allow negotiations provides no permanent solution to the problem.
The United States must make another bold offer to Iran, this time without the accompanying threats. In addition to the economic incentives provided by a full normalization of U.S.–Iranian relations and complete integration of Iran into the world economy, the United States needs to guarantee the Iranians that neither the United States nor Israel will attack Iran. At this late date, with the recent invasions by Iran’s adversaries of Iraq and Lebanon, Iran may be too suspicious that such promises will be broken and elect not to give up its nuclear program. But at this point, it’s the Bush administration’s only option. In fact, the threat of military attack by the United States or Israel is what’s driving Iran to seek nuclear weapons in the first place.
If Iran remains intransigent, the United States will probably have to accept that Iran will likely some day become a nuclear weapons state. Although undesirable, this outcome would not be catastrophic because the United States has the most formidable nuclear forces in the world and could likely deter any strike from the small Iranian atomic arsenal. The United States successfully deterred a nuclear attack by radical Maoist China after that regime got nuclear weapons in the 1960s. Nuclear deterrence should also work in the case of a theocratic Iran.
September 19, 2006
In June, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China offered to provide goodies if Iran ended its nuclear program and threatened economic sanctions if it did not. Negotiations would not start until Iran suspended its enrichment of uranium. Although this was a bold take-it-or-leave-it deal by the six powers, Iran left it.
The Iranians, knowing they have the upper hand against a befuddled Bush administration in several respects, have sporadically and belatedly offered to freeze uranium enrichment, but have refused to do it as a condition for negotiations. But negotiations have been held anyway. At the same time, the United States has pressed Russia and China to fulfill their agreement to impose sanctions if the Iranians balked at the original incentives package. Any sanctions, however, are likely to be weak because both Russia and China have economic interests in Iran. The sanctions being talked about are a ban on exports of nuclear components to Iran and a ban on travel for Iranians working on that country’s nuclear program. Iran already has an extensive illicit network in the West for smuggling nuclear components, so a formal ban on Western sales is unlikely to have much of an effect. For security reasons Iran does not allow its nuclear scientists to do much overseas junketing, so the travel ban will be mainly symbolic too.
The only sanctions that would have any real effect on Iran would be in the oil sector. But Russia and China would oppose these vehemently. And so would the nervous Republicans trying to get re-elected in 2006 and 2008 amid already high oil prices. Any petroleum sanctions against Iran, one of the world’s largest oil producers, would cause the world price of oil to escalate. In addition, the history of economic sanctions indicates that, over time, loopholes and smuggling eventually greatly diminish their effect. The Iranians know this well because they have been under some form of economic sanctions ever since their revolution alarmed the West in the late 1970s. Thus, Iran is not exactly quaking in its boots over the new threat of Western sanctions.
Iran also knows that if the United States launches a military air strike against its nuclear facilities, it could retaliate against the United States by causing much trouble in two areas of substantial Republican vulnerability—Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran could encourage friendly militias in those countries, now supporting their respective governments, to go into violent opposition. The Iranians have many friends in both places who are hostile to the United States. Although Iran would also be harmed by this action, it could close the Strait of Hormuz to petroleum shipments coming out of the Persian Gulf, thus causing the world oil price to skyrocket. But although seemingly irrational, an Iran under U.S. attack might choose to retaliate in any way possible.
Although the Bush administration would have a stronger hand in negotiations with Iran if it hadn’t become involved in the Afghan and Iraqi quagmires, it can’t cry over spilled milk. In addition, haggling over only temporarily freezing the Iranian nuclear program in order to allow negotiations provides no permanent solution to the problem.
The United States must make another bold offer to Iran, this time without the accompanying threats. In addition to the economic incentives provided by a full normalization of U.S.–Iranian relations and complete integration of Iran into the world economy, the United States needs to guarantee the Iranians that neither the United States nor Israel will attack Iran. At this late date, with the recent invasions by Iran’s adversaries of Iraq and Lebanon, Iran may be too suspicious that such promises will be broken and elect not to give up its nuclear program. But at this point, it’s the Bush administration’s only option. In fact, the threat of military attack by the United States or Israel is what’s driving Iran to seek nuclear weapons in the first place.
If Iran remains intransigent, the United States will probably have to accept that Iran will likely some day become a nuclear weapons state. Although undesirable, this outcome would not be catastrophic because the United States has the most formidable nuclear forces in the world and could likely deter any strike from the small Iranian atomic arsenal. The United States successfully deterred a nuclear attack by radical Maoist China after that regime got nuclear weapons in the 1960s. Nuclear deterrence should also work in the case of a theocratic Iran.
posted by Jon at Wednesday, September 20, 2006
1 Comments:
"How do you deter an apocalyptic theocratic death cult/government by threatening them with death?"
I think you need to remember what started the situation with Iran to begin with. It is the same thing that caused North Korea to dust of it's nuclear arsenal. That was the "axis of evil" tirade. What NK and Iran saw was Bush lumping the three nations together as an axis... and then attacking one. The other's first assumption was that they were the next targets. In a sense, Bush was the one to cause the activation of these nuclear weapons programs. (And, yes, I do believe that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon rather than a peaceful power program.)
So, Iran has already been threatened with death, but not the type of death that an Ohio-class submarine brings.
Iran is seeking a nuke because they know the US doesn't invade nations which have a nuclear arsenal. I don't think that there is a way for the US to stop them on our own and without the full and demonstrated support and cooperation of China and Russia.
I don't think Iran wants the nuke as much as they want the respect that having a nuke brings.
"How is the US position weakened by having substantial numbers of combat tempered forces, air strips and ammunition dumps virtually surrounding Iran?"
Militarily? It might in some ways, but that's not the important aspect. The way it has weakened the Bush administration is in how the public has reacted to the war in Iraq. Right now, the support for the war is about 30%. That is down from a high of about 80% at the beginning. The population has lost its 9/11 lust for blood because of what they've seen in Iraq.
As much as Bush says that he doesn't watch the polls, he is still beholden to his party and I guarantee you that they watch the polls. Politicians are in the business of politics. To get elected, they have to keep the people happy. You can't run roughshod over people's opinions for long and still expect to get elected.
"This bunk that the forces have their hands full is pure bunk--their hands are tied, and that is a huge difference."
Politically tied, yes, but not militarily. We are in a great position to launch an operation against Iran right now, but I think that would be political suicide for the whole of the Republican party. Iran knows this and is taking full advantage. If Iran is to be disarmed militarily, it will have to be by a UN force or by a president willing to commit political suicide.
"Once all out war is in the cards, things will change and the hearts and minds will no longer need to be changed, just destroyed."
Yes, this is true, but I don't see Iran doing anything to provoke such a situation. They will possibly antagonize the US covertly and by proxy through organizations such as Hezbollah through attacks on Israel, or by instigating terrorism in Iraq which is hard to trace back to the Iranian government, but that's about it.
"That is far easier to do and what the military knows how to do better than anyone. Untie those hands and see what real death and destruction looks like."
I've been saying for a long time that the US is too civilized now to follow a path of military interventionism. You've seen how irate Americans get over something as harmless as panties over the head. How do you think they'll react to a bloodbath?
"Not to mention that the air force and navy have hardly broken a sweat."
I'm acquainted with the extent of US military might. We don't spend virtually as much on defense as the entire rest of the world put together for nothing.
"I for one am certain that Bush means what he says--Iran will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons."
I'm sure that Bush believes what he says, but for now I don't see the means. It's a pickle.
"Even if they didn't use them, they would certainly use them as cover to continue on their 'mission from gaaawd' and seeking to restore the old Caliphate as the first step in creating a new, world wide caliphate, just as their archaic faith commands them to do."
There is no sense worrying about something that is beyond the realm of possibility. A world-wide caliphate is one of those things.
There are about 1.6 billion people who confess to being a Muslim. That leaves at least 5 billion of the rest of us who aren't willing to live under a caliphate. If you can show me how a bunch of half-assed camel jockeys with enough of a nuclear arsenal to get themselves annihilated might realistically achieve such a goal, then we can start worrying about it.
"I think they mean what they say, too. I don't wish for it, but I don't think it is the worst thing that could happen and it sure as hell isn't unthinkable. I just did."
Ummm... clarify this for me. Is "they" Bush or Iran? Either way, meaning what you say isn't the whole game. You need the means.
Post a Comment
<< Home