I try to follow, to the extent possible, what is going on with US foreign policy toward Iran, and Israel’s place in that. It’s tough. It is like watching a high-stakes poker game between good players and not knowing what cards the players are holding. There is no way of knowing for sure who is bluffing, who is playing what they believe is a winning hand, and whether that belief is correct. Maybe all of them are bluffing. Maybe none of them are.
One element of the troubling situation with Iran is the uncertainty regarding Israel’s intentions. There has been a lot of saber-rattling, but to what extent is Israel actually prepared to walk the walk? Is their military action contingent on US approval, or might they just launch a strike anyway under the theory that it is easier to gain forgiveness than permission? We don’t know, and I find that more than a little unsettling. I will not say “frightening,” because big tough guys like me are immune to fear — at least in print.
A lot of ink has been spilled on whether or not Iran is actually trying for a bomb and what the effect would be if it actually achieves membership to the nuclear club. For what it’s worth, I think Iran is going for the “Japan Option,” which is not to actually produce a warhead or commit to building one – both Japan and Iran are signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty – but to have the technological ability in place to develop a weapon fairly quickly if it considers the global situation changed to the point where it needs to do so. As I say, that’s my guess for what it’s worth, and I’m not convinced it’s worth all that much.
There is no question Iran’s actions have produced an atmosphere of ambiguity. Iran publicly denies any interest in joining the nuclear weapons club, even has issued fatwahs against them, but has been less than entirely forthcoming about the exact state of its nuclear research program.
This reticence to share information may be due to paranoia – the notion that no matter what it says, Israel may be likely to strike simply to punish Iran for its involvement in Palestinian and Lebanese politics. The more information it gives up on its nuclear research program – even if entirely peaceful – the more targeting information Israel has at its disposal and the more damaging the strike when it comes. It may, on the other hand, be due to a desire to cover up an actual on-going weapons program. We are back to trying to guess which cards they are actually holding.
Although a great deal has been argued about whether or not Iran has a nuclear weapons program and what the potential effects of an Iranian bomb would be, very little public consideration has been given to the potential consequences of a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israel. William Kritstol, editor of the Weekly Standard and conservative icon, has openly called for the United States to itself bomb Iran and dismissed the potential negative consequences of such a strike as “likely to be limited.”.
I suppose I would find that more comforting if Kristol had not also said, in 2002, that there would be no important negative consequences of an invasion of Iraq, that we would, in fact, be welcomed as liberators. Of if he had not said in 2003, “The first two battles of this new era are now over. The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably.” Or if, at about the same time, when the question of possible sectarian strife between Sunni and Shiites was raised, he had not said, “There’s almost no evidence of that at all.”
For William Kristol, it seems, there is never much of a potential down-side to military action, or to be more accurate, “almost no evidence of that at all.”
But something new has been added to the mix, the recently released report of the Oxford Research Group, authored by Paul Rogers: MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAN: IMPACT AND EFFECTS. What are the likely effects of such a strike?
1. End Domestic Opposition To The Regime in Tehran
The Green Movement is a loyal opposition and it will respond the way any loyal opposition would to a direct military attack on the nation from outside. It will close ranks with the government. Make no mistake, a direct military attack on Iran will end the Green movement’s opposition to the Islamic Republic and consolidate domestic support for the mullahs.
2. Produce Considerable Civilian Casualties
A strike would not simply intend to inconvenience the Iranian nuclear program; it would aim at crippling it. You do not cripple a scientific research effort simply by knocking down buildings and breaking centrifuges. In Rogers words, “at least as important would be the requirement to do as much damage as possible to Iranian attempts to resuscitate a nuclear research and development programme after the attack. It is for this reason that so much attention would be focused on technical personnel, with a determined effort to kill as many such people as possible. Since this would include university facilities and other research centres, the end result would be an attack with a very broad effect.”
In other words, any hope of a “clean, surgical” strike is a pipe dream.
3. Guarantee an Iranian Bomb
Once someone takes the gloves off and actually hits Iran, any remaining reluctance by Iran to go ahead and develop a bomb is likely to evaporate. The first diplomatic move from Tehran following such an attack will probably be a formal withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Then work will start in earnest on a nuclear weapon.
4. More Air Strikes, And Then More Air Strikes, And More Air Strikes Still
Israel will know that the most likely Iranian response will be to accelerate work on a bomb. Again, from the Oxford Research Group briefing, “Perhaps the most important aspect of an Israel attack on Iranian nuclear and missile facilities is that it would almost certainly be the beginning of a long-term process of regular air strikes to further prevent the development of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. From Israel’s perspective, there will already be recognition that an Iranian response would be an attempted nuclear break-out, rather than a termination of the programme. Hence, once Israel had started to limit Iranian nuclear and missile developments, it could not easily stop.”
The inescapable consequence of a Middle East locked in a perpetual regime of air strikes by Israel against Iran include an end to any near-term possibility of peace in Gaza or the West Bank, which of course would be the surest ways to cripple the global jihadi/terrorist movement.
5. Crush the U.S. Economy
Right now we are looking at a double-dip recession. A spike in oil prices, increased instability in the Middle East, a possible “third front” demanding US military and intelligence attention and resources, all add up to another body blow to the western economies at the worst possible time.
Is Oxford alone in warning against direct military action against Iran? Far from it. Secretary of Defense Gates has warned of the dire consequences of such an act, as has Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen, as have a choir of other military senior officers and officials.
None of that, however, has kept Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) from sponsoring a House bill (HR1553) all but calling on Israel to attack Iran, nor has it kept one third of the Republicans in the House from signing on to the bill.
My take on all this? This is the same “We feel like showing how tough we are and damn the consequences” thinking that got us neck-deep in the Big Muddy in both Iraq and Afghanistan, led us blindly into the longest period of continuous warfare in our nation’s history, led us into it by people who, when it comes to planning a military campaign and weighing it’s possible gains against its likely consequences, couldn’t find their backsides with both hands and a mirror.
But that’s just my opinion.
Related Articles |
Mike said:
VERY well analyzed…and completely accurate, particularly the concluding remarks. Sadly, we have been saddled with nine years of war that could have been concluded in the first nine months, had the alleged “Leadership” been interested in the original goal: Fiding and apprehending/terminating Osama bin Laden. The only conclusions that could be drawn from this nightmare would be either monumental stupidity, or corruption on a scale that boggles the mind. And these people have the CHUTZPAH to point their greasy fingers at the CURRENT administration?
July 27th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
JT said:
Frank – As always a concise and apt portrayal of what may happen, if the ‘War at any cost’ crowd gets it’s way.
July 28th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Jim Vassilakos said:
I heard some years ago this bizarre rumor that a photograph of bin Laden had emerged showing him with high ranking Iranian officials. According to the rumor, a late model cellphone or some such device was present in the picture, verifying that it was taken post 9/11. Now, I’m seeing a UPI report saying that the Iranians have given him a safe haven:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/08/Bin-Laden-said-to-be-in-Iran/UPI-68711276014380/
Asked about whether he’s in Tehran, the slippery Iranian president indicated “no” but mostly just avoided the question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EorruzWn6s
What we do know, of course, is that Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorist groups, that it shares borders with Iran and Afghanistan (where U.S. troops are trying to nation-build democratic states), and that the Iranian government has the most to lose if democracy takes root in either of these two countries.
I’m somehow reminded of the inter-war years in Europe, between the 1st and 2nd world wars, where Hitler was rebuilding the German military despite various arms control agreements of the time. The allies allowed him to do this, all the while hoping and praying for the best, and the result was that Germany eventually became strong enough militarily that Hitler decided to attack.
Had nuclear weapons been present on both sides of the conflict, would Hitler have still done so? Would the Iranians do so? If we allow them to have these weapons, then we leave this decision to them, just as the decision over whether or not to start WWII was left to Hitler. Hence, I think that we should not act too surprised if some terrorist group sets off nukes in the capitals of Iran’s enemies.
Maybe this is our necessary fate. Maybe the only way for democracy to muster the will to face down its natural enemy once and for all is to allow itself to be attacked, because only then will the society unite under the leadership of someone hellbent enough to seek a permanent solution.
I don’t know the answer. Even recalling the run-up to WWII, doing nothing and hoping for the best seems so very attractive. Perhaps it is only wishful thinking, but it is a seductive wish. Now I understand why the allies let Germany re-arm under Hitler, I understand why the U.S. allowed the U.S.S.R. to develop nuclear weapons (1949) arguably leading to the Korean War (1950-53), and I understand why we will probably let all the world’s worst dictatorships do likewise. It is because we are, at heart, wishful thinkers, dedicated to our dream that conflict can be avoided, despite all historical evidence to the contrary.
July 28th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
John Merkatatis said:
Well analyzed Frank,but It could do with the a devil’s advocate,but only on Israel’s part:Israel was on good working terms with Iran during the time of Pahlevi;Iran’s nuclear sites and the construction and installation of the furnaces was achieved with conciderable Israeli help.Israel has an extesive information network in the Arab countries including Iran and know where and possibly when to strike;a variety of sources expect such an Israeli strike,but they don’t know the ‘when’ and the extend of the strike or strikes,and if they intend to cripple or to obliterate.If it is the later,the strikes can be extended to the industrial and economic apparatus of Iran and then,building an atom bomb will be the least of Iranian worries.
July 29th, 2010 at 7:05 am
Frank Chadwick said:
Jim, thanks for joining the discussion. You raise a point which really cries out to be discussed further.
The story of Bin Laden being in Iran has been floating around for over a year, usually as a rumor or a shadowy “unnamed intelligence sources claim” report, but whenever you try to nail it down it always sources back to The Birdman of Iran, Alan Parrot, now getting wider viewing in the new documentary “Feathered Cocaine.”
The facts, such as they are, appear to be the following:
1) A number of Bin Laden’s family have been held under house arrest in Tehran since the early 2000’s.
2) Alan Parrot claims an employee of his heard from a military official that Bin Laden regularly participates in falconing in the the vicinity of a remote northern Iranian town.
These two “facts” have been merged in some news reports into “Osama Bin Laden living in luxury in Tehran.” These would be news outlets which do not read their own sources very carefully. It is Bin Laden’s family being held in Tehran; no source has placed Osama Bin Laden himself there.
Fox News is flogging the Parrot documentary and says the always-colorful former CIA agent Robert Baer (said to have insired George Clooney’s character in Syriana) endorses his claim. Baer appears briefly in the documentary to say when he was with The Agency they used to look at falcon camps and al Qaeda funded its operations by smuggling falcons. He doesn’t say in the documentary that Bin Laden is in Iran, which makes sense since elsewhere he has said he thinks Bin Laden is dead.
By the way, four years ago Parrot was peddling the same story on Fox News about secret falcon camps riddled with al Qaeda bigshots where oil sheiks flew in to met with Bin Laden and plan terror attacks, but that time the camps were all in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not Iran. Pretty hard for Bin Laden to have been in Pakistan and Afghanistan if he’s been in Iran the whole time, not to mention (according to Baer) dead. It brings to mind the old Firesign Theatre album “How Can You Be Two Places At Once When You’re Really Nowhere At All?”
Recently ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview with Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad mentioned the documentary and said in it that Parrot had spoken with Bin Laden several times (apparently George hadn’t actually seen the documentary, because it does not claim that) and asked Ahmadinejad if it was true. Ahmadinejad said the question was laughable — which, in fairness, it really is — and denied Bin Laden was in Iran. Call that side-stepping it if you like.
The real danger is that if enough of this crackpot stuff circulates long enough, people will say, “Well, where there’s smoke there’s fire.”
But sometimes there isn’t. Sometimes there’s just crapolla.
July 29th, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Frank Chadwick said:
John, you make an interesting point. Of course, if Israel launches a series of strikes so broad as to cripple the Iranian economy and take out enough it Iran’s scientific community to make restarting a nuclear program difficult or impossible, I would guess that Iran would be the least of Israel’s problems. No matter how you cut it, the strikes being contemplated are unprovoked. Iran has not broken international law nor has it committed an act of war justifying a military attack. If Israel launches such an unprovoked attack on Iran and one which produces a casualty toll roughly the same as we suffered in 911, Israel will, I believe, become such an international pariah it will have a hard time surviving.
July 29th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
John Merkatatis said:
Frank,when the Head of an influential and troublesome State in the Middle East repeatedly states that he is bend on the destruction of of Israel I tend to believe him,ditto for the Israelis,they take him
seriously,and if Ahmadinejad’s statements are not provocative I don’t know what is and given his nation’s terrorist backround(eg Hezbolah)there is ample provocation there to cause an Israeli attack.
I have to agree with Jim about WWII and whishful thinkers;even the Israelis were;the trouble was that old Adolf had clearly stated in his “Mein Kampf” what he intended to do when(not if…)he attained power,but none of the European ‘esteemed’ leaders had bothered to read it;had they done so,they would have stopped Hitler in his tracks in Munich.The same I think is happening today with Iran,everybody is listening to Ahmadinejad threatening Israel without paying due attention,but Israelis are no longer wishful thinkers;when the rockets of Hellewan were ready to fly,the six day war was launched and the Israeli pe-emptive strike doctrine is now an acceptable addition to Public International Law regarding defensive war.Let’s see what is going to happen when the Iranian atom bomb is in the process of construction;will that be the moment of the Israeli strike?
July 30th, 2010 at 6:10 am
John Merkatatis said:
Well,I have to agree with Jim here about his WWII wishful thinkers including the Jews;the fact is that old Adolf had stated clearly what he intended to in his “Mein Kampf”,but none of the leaders at that time had bothered to read it;had they done so,they could have stopped Hitler in his tracks in Munich.
Frank,when Ahmadinejad states openly his intention to destry Israel,I take him seriously and ditto the Israelis;that is provocation enough for a nation with its back on the sea and with its favoured concept of pre-emptive strike vs destruction.Do you remember the rockets of Hellewan Frank?before they were ready to be launched the Israelis lkaunched the six day war in 67;can we now possibly foresee the time of an Israeli attack in that context?
July 30th, 2010 at 8:29 am
Frank Chadwick said:
John,
If we take the Iranians at their word, of course, they have no intention of building or using an atomic weapon. What Ahmadinejad actually thinks about this is in more dispute than I bet you imagine and the various translations of his remarks on the disappearance of Israel from the map have been interpreted and massaged almost beyond recognition. In any case, Ahmadinejad’s finger is not on the trigger. He does not control the armed forces or foreign policy of Iran. The mullas do, and they have been consistent in their pronouncements on the use of nuclear weapons.
Can we trust those pronouncements categorically? Of course not and I am not suggesting we can. I merely point out the dangers of picking and choosing among the statements of our adversaries and using the results, like the clipped-out words of a ransom note, to prove whatever we feel like.
I don’t agree with Jim about the lesson of the interwar years. I don’t believe that there is no middle ground between abject surrender/appeasement on one hand and all-out preemptive military attacks on the other. If the moral basis of action is that we are obligated to attack anyone who we think might someday be in conflict with us, we are accepting an obligation to be mass murderers. As I understand what Jim is saying, he believes we should militarily have “prevented” the Soviet Union from developing nuclear weapons, that our falure to do so is evidence of a weakness in our national character. The only way we could have done so was a preemptive nuclear strike, killing millions of civilians. Is that what you agree with?
This is the same philosophy — exactly the same — which prompted Japan to launch a preemptive strike against Pearl Harbor in 1941. I’m not crazy about that policy decision either. How about you? Or do the standards by which we judge the actions of others not apply to us?
August 1st, 2010 at 10:28 pm