October 09 , 2009
Do Not Attack Iran
The ongoing standoff between the US and Iran heated up in the last week as the US revealed Iran was building another nuclear enrichment facility, and Iran rattled its sabers with several missile tests, including missiles with the range to reach Israel. Pressure is growing within the US to stop Iran’s nuclear program, and Israelis are making more noises about a military strike.
Before Obama agrees to any military action he must carefully consider the alternatives and consequences. At this point, an attack on Iran would be deeply counterproductive and a real setback to American foreign policy goals.
It is not clear how far Iran is from a nuclear weapon. The key technological hurdle is enriching uranium to weapons-grade. Iran has one enrichment facility at Natanz and is now apparently building another. Iran claims these are only for the purpose of enriching uranium to fuel grade (5% U235) for a nuclear power plant, and not weapons grade (over 90% U235). But any facility that can do the first is technically capable of doing the second, and the size of the facility, according to the US, is much larger than what would be needed if it is only for fuel production. Regardless, the Iranians claim their intent is only to fuel their nuclear power plant ambitions, which they claim are needed so that Iran’s oil and gas can be exported instead.
But let us assume Iran is trying to get a weapon, and that they succeed in producing one in the next five years. What is the significance of that? For the US, really not much. Iran is in no position to threaten the US with a nuclear strike, and is not able to get the capacity to do so for decades. To shrink a nuclear bomb to the size that it can fit on a small missile is very difficult, and Iran will not be able to do that for many years, if ever. Besides, Iran does not have missiles that can even reach Western Europe, and does not have the resources to really develop intercontinental missiles.
But Iran could in theory threaten Israel. This is where the real pressure is coming from. It is Israel that is threatened by Iran’s military power, not the US. An Iranian nuclear capability would freeze Israel’s military freedom of action in the Middle East that it has enjoyed for decades. Israel would have to carefully consider Iranian interests and responses to anything Israel did. The possibility of nuclear war would also be a powerful stimulus for bright young Israelis to emigrate and move to the safety of Europe or the US. A nuclear Iran would be very bad for Israel, and they know it. But to force the US into action they have to convince America that Iran actually intends to use nuclear weapons. This is where their argument falls apart.
Iran has never attacked one of its neighbors. The regime there is not expansionist or aggressive. It is in fact conservative and paranoid. It wants nuclear weapons as a defensive bulwark against attack. Iran knows that if Saddam had nukes, the US would never have invaded. The Iranian regime wants to preserve itself, it is not interested in exchanging Teheran for Tel Aviv. The phantom of the “mad mullahs” willing to destroy Iran in exchange for striking a blow against the US or Israel is a paranoid right-wing Israeli fantasy.
Obama should stall on the Iran issue. He should continue to seek negotiations, keep up diplomatic pressure, and apply what sanctions he can get approved. But sanctions on Iran will have little bite, and will not force a change in policy. No sanction regime will accomplish much without total cooperation from Iraq, and that is highly unlikely. And ultimately, Iran’s oil wealth will allow it to buy its way around any real sanctions.
Even if the US wanted to pursue a military option, Iran has planned for that. Its nuclear facilities are scattered, redundant, and deep underground. An air campaign would not be able to definitively end the Iranian program, although it may delay it a few years. But the cost of the strike in international repercussions and diplomatic costs would be very high. Obama has tried to repair the US image around the world, and to a large extent has succeeded. An attack on Iran would undo all that. Iran could also retaliate in Iraq or with Hezbollah in Lebanon. It could also make trouble in Afghanistan. Long after the US leaves the Middle East, Iran will still be the largest nation in the region. That reality cannot be changed.
The other terrible result of an American strike would be the destruction of the internal reform movement in Iran. The last election showed that there is immense pressure building in Iran for change, and that even among senior clerics there are deep divisions. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei will die in the next 5-10 years, and at that point the system may very well undergo a major reform. Internal change in Iran is the best hope for achieving long-term US goals. A military strike will greatly delay that critical process. It is better to accept a nuclear Iran and contain it, than it is to strike now and suffer the consequences.
