New at Reason

David Weigel | June 2, 2006

Brian Doherty looks down the barrel at the lousy options and probable outcomes of the Iran situation.

Comments

|6.2.06 @ 4:38PM|#

The notion that deterrence works as a way of restraining nuclear armed states, the sole justification for allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons is greatly flawed. It rests on precisely 2 examples: the United States v. the Soviet Union, and India v. Pakistan. Even ignoring the near misses, the fact that that the Indo-Pak standoff continues, and the fanatical nature of the current Iranian government, we are still left with two examples. Not enough to show that deterrence works. It also ignores the damage Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, can do through that weapon, knowing its nuclear weapons make it almost impossible to find out.
It's fairly clear, given all of this, and despite wishful thinking that Sen. McCain is right when he said the only thing worse than an American attack on Iran is a nuclear armed Iran. At the very least no arguments have been presented that show otherwise.

|6.2.06 @ 5:35PM|#

When I read the letter to Bush, it reminded me of a Frank Herbert quote:

'When I am weaker than you, I ask for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.'

Of course, Bush is no paragon of freedom (despite his insistence to the contrary). I think the statement still fits as a good warning.

|6.2.06 @ 6:27PM|#

Hillel Franklin's article brings back memories of 2002. The confidence in preemptive war as a safe tool to pick up and wield for our foreign policy, the affected contempt for the masculinity of people who don't share his confidence...National Review was always full of Victor David Hanson nattering on about the Romans in this vein.

|6.2.06 @ 8:01PM|#

w.e white,

"...the only thing worse than an American attack on Iran is a nuclear armed Iran."

In my opinion, there is one thing worse: an American nuclear attack on Iran, the stick to the "energy assistance" carrot that we're currently wielding.

While it would solve a pressing short-term problem, it would inevitably create an enormous long-term problem, namely, the nuclearification of every nation without a current security agreement with the US. It would be a nuclear bazaar, with A.Q. Khan acting as the Master of Ceremonies.

The message is clear: If you can somehow get to a live nuclear test, and apprise the world of that accomplishment, you are in the clear (India, Pakistan, North Korea apparently, thanks to Pakistan, again apparently) and we will welcome you into the family of nuclear nations.

Even a country with a military dictatorship can belong as long as they are strategically important to our short-term military and strategic goals.

Consider this opening statement from "Pakistan's Nuclear Proliferation Activities and the Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission: U.S. Policy Constraints and Options"


--------------------------------------
In calling for a clear, strong, and long-term commitment to support the military-dominated government of Pakistan despite serious concerns about that country's nuclear proliferation activities, The Final Report of the 9/11 Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States cast into sharp relief two long-standing contradictions in U.S. policy towards Pakistan and South Asia. First, in over fifty years, the United States and Pakistan have never been able to align their national security objectives except partially and temporarily. Pakistan's central goal has been to gain U.S. support to bolster its security against India, whereas the United States has tended to view the relationship from the perspective of its global security interests.

Second, U.S. nuclear nonproliferation objectives towards Pakistan (and India) repeatedly have been subordinated to other U.S. goals. During the 1980s, Pakistan successfully exploited its importance as a conduit for aid to the anti-Soviet Afghan mujahidin to deter the application of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation law. Not only did Pakistan develop its nuclear weapons capability while receiving some $600 million annually in U.S. military and economic aid, but some of the erstwhile mujahidin came to form the core of Al Qaeda and Taliban a decade later.
--------------------------------------

Here's another scary piece:

--------------------------------------
The 9/11 Commission Report argues that President Musharraf is "the best hope for stability in Pakistan and Afghanistan" and an advocate of "enlightened moderation."
--------------------------------------
Wow, he's our best hope, huh?

The four options discussed in the report are worth taking a look at, they are:

Option 1 - Fully Support Musharraf on Condition of Continued Counterterrorism Support
Option 2 - Multilateral Nonproliferation Strategies
Option 3 - Condition High Value Assistance on Access to A.Q. Khan
Option 4 - Reimposition of Nuclear Nonproliferation Sanctions

#3, getting help with Khan, is essential, since his network is fourishing, but a section from this option analysis shows just how much a nuclear force such as Pakistan can sway our policy:


--------------------------------------
A potentially significant problem with this option is that so long as Musharraf or a successor perceives that the Bush Administration needs him more than he needs the United States, Pakistan is in a position to turn the tables on U.S. policymakers. That is, instead of treating the F-16's or other weapons systems as a "carrot," to be earned by additional cooperation, Pakistan could reduce or limit its cooperation on terrorism as a lever to get the United States to agree to allow the purchase of the aircraft and other desired hardware. In fact, some of President Musharraf's remarks at a press conference during a visit to Washington in early December 2004 could be interpreted as effort to put counter-pressure on the United States to approve the sale of the F-16's. Musharraf told reporters that he had discussed the F-16 issue with President Bush and senior U.S. officials, but that the Administration had not yet agreed to the requested purchase. At the same time, Musharraf also implied declining enthusiasm about using Pakistani forces to hunt for Al Qaeda in tribal zone between Pakistan and Afghanistan, where many believe bin Laden and other senior terrorist leaders may be hiding.
--------------------------------------

Imagine a dozen more countries with this kind of influence over our foriegn policy options, and the temptation to run to the fridge and grab a cold one becomes overwhelming.

|6.2.06 @ 9:44PM|#

"Ruth Buzzi was one out of only four people to appear in every episode of Laugh-In. Her signature character was the frowzy spinster "Gladys Ormphby," clad in brown with her bun hairdo covered by a visible hairnet. The character was a well-balanced and believable mix, defending her virginal purity and honor on the one hand, and desperately seeking wild and amorous romance on the other. The "defense" came from her lethal purse, with which she would flail away at anyone who sought to take advantage of her. On Laugh-In, Gladys most often appeared as the unwilling object of the advances of Arte Johnson's "dirty old man" character "Tyrone." "

Above was lifted from WikiPaedia.

My impressions of Iranians include a Ruth Buzzi look-alike here in Sinincincinnati.
She is a librarian by trade, and I helped her find gainful employment here.
I'm sure she makes at least double what I'm making.

That and my one-legged Chattanooga cousin married an Iranian, and they live happily in Hong Kong.

I love Iranians. My momma loves Iranians. My cousins love Iranians.

Iranians are nice people. (Lethal with a purse, maybe, but hey!)

Let's get physical!

|6.2.06 @ 11:12PM|#

In 60 years, mankind has perfected its doomsday machine and propagated it to the point where as many as nine nations have the potential to initiate the annihilation of the species. Not one has shown any real inclination to abandon such capability once obtained. Raise your hand if you think the number of WMD nations is going down over the next 4 or 5 decades.

While we are arguably further from the brink then at points in our recent past, as long as there are nuclear haves who can dictate terms to the have-nots, proliferation will continue. The realpolitik of MAD is unfortunately still the only true defense against religious or nationalistic ideology, a thought that does not comfort me in the era of asymmetric warfare.

It's like Sting said: I hope the Russians (and the Chinese, Pakistanis, N. Koreans, Iranians, Shiites, Sunnis,. . . .) love their children too.

fyodor|6.3.06 @ 10:46AM|#

Since Iran is out and proud about its uranium, and about believing it should have the right to possess nuclear weapons that others have, no "were there or weren't there WMDs?" embarassment is likely in any Iran war aftermath.

Correct me if I 'm wrong, but I could have sworn that Iran's official position, even if no one believes them, is that their nuclear program is strictly for peaceful, ie energy, purposes. (Skimming the linked article I couldn't figure out if it clarifies the matter or not.)

Considering how few people really doubted Saddam had WMD's (though many disputed the nature of their threat to us), isn't it at least conceivably possible we could invade Iran and find plenty of uranium but no actual weapons program? Note, I'm asking not if it's "likely" but if it's "possible".

|6.3.06 @ 11:34AM|#

Even assuming an invasion of Iran truly is necessary, how exactly are we supposed to do it? The military's too stretched out for an effective boots-on-the-ground invasion, and from what I've read many of Iran's nuke facilities are underground, and spread out, so it's not a simple matter of sending a couple of missiles to a specific area and blowing up the facilities.

|6.3.06 @ 12:41PM|#

The fact is, there is absolutely no good reason for a country not to pursue a nuclear weapons program. There is no carrot that can be offered by the US or the international community that is as useful. There is only stick. That leaves us with:

1) Make sure the threat of the stick is credible.
2) Expect brinksmanship.
3) Gut check to see how much stick we are really prepared to use.

My feeling is that a period of air strikes against nuke facilities would be a good return on investment in terms of making the process very expensive, but if that turns out to be unworkable because they build processing underground in Tehran, we will have to live with a nuclear Iran. Living with a nuclear Iran may mean accepting a period of rapid expansion of the number of nuclear states in the world for the sake of stability.

No good options. The only way to stop it is to reassert an ability to detect and eliminate at relatively low cost to ourselves any nuclear activity anywhere in the world. Since Pakistan and India, we just don't have that kind of credibility anymore.

|6.3.06 @ 12:47PM|#

fyodor:

Point taken, but:

1) If they were interested in local power generation, they would have taken the Russian deal or the more recent brokered one that provided them with cut rate uranium.

2) With X number of centrifuges you are interested in power, with Y you are interested in bombs. The stated goal of the Iranian government is to build up Y capacity for refinement.

3) They tried initially to hide the whole thing from IAEA.

4) The incentive to build a bomb is very high.

|6.3.06 @ 4:57PM|#

Jennifer, if an invasion of Iraq truly is necessary, like the invasion of Iraq in 1991 or the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, then we can expect to have the help of our allies at the impressive levels we had during those episodes.

If, on the other hand, the invasion of Iran is yet onther right wing fantasy, part of the neoconservative Really Big Plan That Couldn't Possibly Go Wrong, we would indeed be screwed.

So, are Richard Perle and Dougles Feith (ie, the two most wrong human beings in recorded history) being asked to check the CIA, IAEA, and State Department's intelligence work on Iran yet?

|6.3.06 @ 5:00PM|#

Do we get to include Iran's expediting of its nuclear program, along with the squashing of its once-powerful internal dissent activities, on the list of regional political transformations created by our liberation of Iraq?

|6.3.06 @ 6:31PM|#

the two most wrong human beings in recorded history

Look up a fellow named Jimmy Carter (who's really the Ur-source of our current mess). Then Paul Ehrlich (who's just always wrong no matter what). Dude, there's a LOT of competition for that title.

|6.3.06 @ 6:50PM|#

"Do we get to include Iran's expediting of its nuclear program, along with the squashing of its once-powerful internal dissent activities, on the list of regional political transformations created by our liberation of Iraq?"

I suspect that is a fair assessment. My read is that Iraq advanced the desire to squash internal dissent, which in turn enabled sincere efforts on the nuclear front. My hedging on full agreement comes in noting that the only way the nuclear program gets delayed (not eliminated, but delayed) is through internal strife, which I'm not sure is good either.

|6.3.06 @ 10:53PM|#

My hedging on full agreement comes in noting that the only way the nuclear program gets delayed (not eliminated, but delayed) is through internal strife, which I'm not sure is good either.

If the internal strife is liberal dissidents agitating against a religious fundamentalist regime then it is a very, very, very good thing.

|6.4.06 @ 7:44PM|#

thoreau:

Strife isn't the same as victory for the good guys. That is my worry. Some forms of instability would be worse and some might be better. I dunno.

|6.4.06 @ 9:49PM|#

Do we get to include Iran's expediting of its nuclear program, along with the squashing of its once-powerful internal dissent activities, on the list of regional political transformations created by our liberation of Iraq?

I suspect that both the Iranian nuclear program and its theological police state predated the toppling of Saddam Hussein, joe.

|6.5.06 @ 9:36AM|#

I have to go with R C on this one. I don't think Iran just got started in the last few years. I imagine that they thought it would be a good idea around the time Iraq thought it would (only Iran didn't get bombed by the Israelis). Not to mention, nuclear weapons are an excellent way to keep the U.N. and the U.S. out. I do think the saber-rattling is a little more intense due to our presence there, but the fact of the nuclear weapons program probably doesn't have anything to do with our latest invasion of Iraq.

It also serves Iran that by working towards atomic bombs, they're getting the whole world to sit at the table and make offers. I've got problems with that, because it creates an added incentive for other countries to build big bombs.

|6.5.06 @ 2:01PM|#

True enough, SY.

But while Carter and Ehrlich were more or less left by the side of the road, Richard Perle and his "B Team" were brought back for a second round.

Wrongness, the really historic wrongness we're talking about, needs have both degree and scope.

RC, Pro L, you missed the verbs in my post. Yes, Iran had been working on nukes before the Iraq invasion, but they certainly stepped things up, didn't they? Yes, Iran was cracking down on its dissidents before the Iraq War, but they were certainly given a freer hand.