Intelligence leaks and diplomatic rhetoric put Iran in the crosshairs of the Global War on Terror. US President Bush has declared that the world cannot allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and the US reportedly is developing plans to destroy Iran's nuclear power and development facilities, ironically, using tactical nuclear warheads. But even that may not be enough and hardliners are clamoring for war with the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Facts on the Ground

Following the 1991 Gulf War, the invasion of Afghanistan and the invasion of Iraq the US has significantly increased its military, political and economic power in the Middle East and Persian Gulf region. America has developed military cooperation agreements with Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan. The US occupies Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is surrounded. As an Iranian, you’d have ever reason to fear America’s ultimate intentions. The US helped overthrow a former Iranian leader (Mossadagh), replacing him with pro-US, Shah Pahlavi, until he was deposed in the Islamic Revolution. Your only defense may be Iranian uranium - a nuclear deterrent.

Good for the Goose

Iran is within striking range of nuclear-armed nations, including: Israel, India, China, Pakistan, Russia and the US. Iran’s neighbor, Pakistan, has nuclear weapons and is considered an unstable regime, after a military coup by Gen. Musharaf. Israel has over 200 nuclear warheads and submarines armed with cruise missiles, capable of striking anywhere in Iran. The major countries opposed to Iran developing nuclear weapons are the US, France, England, Russia and China, all of which have nuclear weapons. No Arab Muslim or Persian Muslim state has nuclear weapons. North Korea has developed nuclear weapons and the US is not threatening them. Although the nuclear states object to the prospect of a nuclear Iran, they have done little to reduce or eliminate their own weapons.

Catch-22

Bombing an active nuclear facility will release and disperse radioactivity into the air, threatening the lives and health of anyone downwind, in effect, a “dirty bomb.” To avoid radioactive exposure of innocents, an attack must be launched before there are nuclear materials on site. This entails a pre-emptive strike against a sovereign country that does not actually have nuclear weapons or nuclear materials, thus contradicting the rationale for an attack. Hence, the argument for justification must focus on the country’s intent, which requires either elusive, reliable and definitive intelligence, or clairvoyance. Ironically, to attack another country, or threaten imminent attack is legal justification for the targeted state to strike first, or arguably to develop a defensive nuclear deterrent, time permitting.

Fallout

A pre-emptive strike against a country’s nuclear facilities can make a bad situation worse. In 1981, Israel launched an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear power and development facility. The UN and US condemned the attacks publicly (Dick Cheney reportedly sent congratulations). As a result, Iraq intensified its WMD programs. In 1991, the US flew nearly 1000 sorties against Iraq’s expanded WMD facilities. Since Israel’s strike on Iraq, countries have moved weapons development programs into fortified underground facilities and have built decoy facilities, making it considerably more difficult for adversaries to destroy them. Meanwhile, pre-emptive strikes provide proof and justification of the need to develop a nuclear deterrent to protect a nation’s sovereignty.

Regime Change

Arguably, the only way to achieve a lasting solution after a pre-emptive strike is to replace the target country’s leadership with more moderate leaders who will not pursue WMDs. Hence, a strike must be followed by a successful rebellion, or an all-out invasion to take down the rogue government. The experience in Iraq has demonstrated the result of a failed uprising (1991) and the problems associated with invasion, insurgency and civil war that can result – especially where the invader is as unpopular as the US (or Israel), and where the invasion can be seen as a clash of civilizations or religious war. Clearly, the process is extremely difficult, unpredictable and extraordinarily expensive.

Size Matters

Population:

Afghanistan – 31 million
Iraq - 22 million
Iran – 69 million
Combined enemy population – 126.5 million

Land Area:

Afghanistan – 647,500 sq. km
Iraq – 437,072 sq. km
Iran – 1,648,000 sq. km
Combined enemy land area – 2,733,000 sq. km

Wealth:

Afghanistan - $800 GDP per capita
Iraq - $3,400 GDP per capita
Iran - $8,000 GDP per capita

To invade, occupy and pacify Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran requires controlling 2.7 million square kilometers of territory. For perspective this is roughly equivalent in size to the combined land area of the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Ukraine and Belarus. Visualize World War II and one gets the scale of the Global War on Terror. Assuming that things could go wrong, the conflict could spread to Syria and Pakistan adding another 1.0 million square kilometers of enemy territory. 

Iran's Natanz Nuclear Facility

Provoking Terrorism

Prior to the US invasion, Iraq was not a source of terrorism, while Afghanistan harbored Al-Qaeda’s estimated 15,000 fighters at most. Since invading Iraq, the country has become the Grand Central Station of terrorism and yet Iraq poses little, if any, threat to the American homeland. US policy has undoubtedly increased the influence and size of Al-Qaeda, but even this threat seems contained. An attack on or invasion of Iran could provoke increasing levels of international terrorism targeting US interests, businesses, or military bases worldwide and at home. Conceivably, attacking yet another Muslim country could provoke a global religious war.

A Safer America

A nuclear Iran poses no threat whatsoever to the American homeland. Provoking a widespread Muslim backlash against the US could increase the terrorism threat significantly, making it difficult to argue that an attack on Iran will result in a safer America or a safer world.

A Safer Israel

Many analysts believe that if the US doesn’t attack Iran, Israel will. Israel has reportedly purchased 500 large “bunker-buster” bombs from the US. The Israelis should be equally concerned about the possible results, the certain uncertainties and possible fallout from an attack. But Israeli national interests and American national interests are not one and the same. What is good for Israel may not be good for America. It’s unclear that any attack on Iran is good for anyone.

A Messianic Mission

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the situation is the perceived connection between Christian Fundamentalism and apparent Bush Administration mission. President Bush admits that he knows little about the world and its history, rarely reads books or newspapers and relies on a close circle of trusted advisors, many of whom are acknowledged neoconservatives with extremely close ties to Israel – several hold dual US and Israeli citizenship. Key Bush advisors, working with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) wrote policy documents for the Israeli government that set the stage for war with Iraq. Neoconservative guru, Michael Ledeen, and others, are staunch advocates for war with Iran – the final stage in re-drawing the Middle East map. Their goals are related to Bible prophecies, which they claim require that Israel control much of the land in the Middle East. But time is short to complete the messianic mission; they must act now, while President Bush remains in power. They may never be another chance.

The Unspoken Options

Seymour Hersh recently revealed US plans for an attack on Iran that could include the use of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s underground facilities and the Bush Administration has not denied this possibility. The US has also announced plans for a major test detonation at the Nevada test site, near Las Vegas, of a massive fuel-air bunker buster bomb.  The test is planned for the first week of June 2006. If successful, this weapon could preclude the need to use nuclear warheads against Iran, while yielding similar results. However, people are speaking about these options.

The unspoken option is diplomacy, negotiation and, if necessary, tolerance and acceptance of one more nuclear power – Iran. This so-called “do-nothing” option could entail doing more than nothing, however.

Nuclear Iran

What has become of such concepts as: mutually assured destruction, co-existence, and détente? For 25 years the world survived a nuclear stand off between the US and USSR. Why is Iran different? Why won’t these same policies work now? Is rapprochement impossible?  The truth is they could work and could avoid war, but in doing so some of the adversaries would not achieve their real, underlying goals.

With more foreign investment Iran could increase its oil production, tapping into its huge reserves and improve its national economy. Absent Western animosity and attempts the spread western culture, Iran could open its doors to the world, while still retaining its Persian and Islamic traditions. Whether Iran could resist modernization is more an internal question than a result of external influences. The uncertainties are surely out-weighed by the potential risk of a violent confrontation today.

Iran has not posed a threat to regional neighbors, except Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and Iran has expressed to regional ambitions, other than to resolve disputed territorial claims with Iraq. Iran has good relations with neighboring Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkistan.

Even the most extremist elements of Iran’s leadership can make no viable argument for the aggressive use of nuclear weapons when the result would be massive retaliation by the US, or Israel with its potent nuclear arsenal.  Nuclear capability would however enhance Iran’s national security, its regional influence and its bargaining position.

Iran is a sworn enemy of Israel and does lend support to Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the Palestinian Authority. It is these anti-Israeli policies that drive Israeli demands to attack Iran. Israel knows full well that Iran poses no direct existential threat and that Israel has ample deterrent capability without any US support.

Critics of Co-Existence

According to Gerald M. Steinberg, writing for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, those who, “point to the history of the U.S. and the Soviet Union as an example of successful deterrence, and draw a highly simplistic and dangerous analogy to compare it to the threat that would be posed by a nuclear-armed Iran with respect to its neighbors in the Middle East, including the Gulf oil producers, as well as Israel, the U.S., and even Europe.

“More serious analysis reveals that the potential for the development and maintenance of a stable deterrence relationship with a radical and isolated Islamic Iranian leadership armed with nuclear weapons is highly problematic. Instead, as demonstrated by Pakistan in the 1999 Kargil crisis with India, this regime could trigger confrontations and crises that could quickly escalate out of control. The Iranian religious leaders who make the key decisions via the Expediency Council have very limited knowledge of and contact with the outside world, and have close links with terror groups such as Hizballah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.”

This is the extent of the more serious analysis: radical, isolated Islamic Iranian leaders could trigger confrontations and crisis. The counterpoint is that radical, Jewish Israeli leaders, already armed with nuclear weapons, could do exactly the same. In fact, Israel has launched pre-emptive war and maintains a policy of collective punishment outside of the standards of international law. It’s a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Nonetheless, warmongers clamor for an attack on Iran, admitting that this would only delay nuclear development. They appear impervious and oblivious to the possible consequences, known and unknown.

Blowback

If Israel attacks Iran, they will need permission to over fly airspace in Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia or Iraq to reach their targets, or they can ignore the permission process and take their chances. In any case, Iran will find the US complicit in the attacks. It’s safe to assume that Iran has undertaken contingency planning and is prepared to retaliate using terrorist proxies or direct action.

An attack is certain to provoke outrage throughout the Muslim world and drive new recruits massive to al-Qaeda. Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are likely to attack Israel. Iranian supporters inside Iraq (there are many) are likely to step up attacks on US occupying forces and could seriously disrupt the already troubled attempts at Iraqi democracy. US bases in Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and UAE are within easy striking range of Iranian forces along the Persian Gulf. Pakistan could implode as Islamists seek to overthrow US lackey, Gen. Musharaf and Pakistani rebels could gain control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal – a worst-case scenario.

Iran’s oil production could cease, further inflating energy costs worldwide. The cost of the Global War on Terror would increase substantially, increasing US budget deficits, pushing interest rates higher and devaluing the dollar. We could find ourselves on the brink of an international economic calamity. And if Usama bin Laden were as shrewd as expected, this would be the time for a major attack on the US economic infrastructure that could plunge America into a depression. At least Israel would be satisfied until they found the US unable to provide their annual $3.0 billion aid package.

Maybe, the US could put more time and energy into old-fashioned diplomacy and learn the lessons of Iraq. A plan can look good on paper, but you can throw it away when the shooting starts.

Option-1

Precious Oil Up in Smoke
During the Iraq-Iran War (Corbis)

Option-2

Modern Tehran Cityscape
Photo by Bahram Amirebrahimi