The Iran Questions

I think The Atlantic deserves a lot of credit. They have effectively leveraged the reputations of their intellectual capital towards bringing about a serious and constructive discussion on the issues related to the Iranian nuclear program. It started with two contributions in the most recent edition - this article by Jeffery Goldberg and this article by Robert Kaplan.

Impressive is the follow on articles here, here, here, here, here, and too many other places both on the site and around the web to link. What we are seeing is fantastic journalism being leveraged to generate a Web 2.0 model for the collaboration and debate of serious issues and ideas on the web, and it is so rare in American politics today that I think some folks are overreacting and believe the sky might be falling. Hardly, the discussion is both healthy and informative - something that has been missing in regards to serious national security debates in the 21st century.

There are three key questions emerging that I think are worth a blog post.

1. Will there be military action against the Iranian nuclear program?
2. If military action is inevitable, who will take that action against the Iranian nuclear program?
3. What is a legitimate plan C that doesn't involve military action?

My answers are sure to piss someone off.

The answer to the first question is - probably, yes. I do not believe the current US diplomatic effort has a chance in hell succeeding. I'm old school when it comes to diplomacy, I firmly believe Roosevelt's model was exactly right, and in particular with the Middle East - every approach must be speak softly and carry a big stick. I think the US does a terrible job speaking softly, because in my opinion all we do is loudly offer sanctions as a solution to every problem. I also think that when it comes to the diplomacy of carrying a big stick, the US instead brings a tiny twig of bamboo. This is a discussion about nuclear weapons, and our stick is a conventional military confrontation that the whole world believes would do little to hurt the government of Iran.

Both Progressives and Conservatives will argue that President Obama is somehow different than President Bush when it comes to Iran. I don't see the difference - and if it exists - it is too nuanced for the Iranians to notice. At the end of the day both presidents used sanctions as the carrot and a twig represented by conventional military power as a stick. I don't think that model has a chance in hell of working. Want results - ditch the sanctions and work on issues that actually mean something to Iran - like investment and trade with a focus on economy. We didn't have to kill the Iranian economy with sanctions - it was already dead.

But we also need a bigger stick. We are talking about a nuclear weapons program - one that the national security establishment of this country has significant concerns with (enough that Presidents imply the threat of military action). The stick needs to be proportional to the threat - and if the threat is that Iran would allow the use of nuclear weapons under any conditions - then perhaps we need to imply the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. I'm not a big fan of MAD, nor am I a fan of preemptive strike - but I think a hint of both would be constructive towards making our twig look a bit more like a Louisville Slugger. It will also do wonders for getting the attention of anyone in the world who doesn't understand how serious we take this issue.

Conventional military power is not a threat to Iran. Invasion is beyond silly to contemplate, and beyond the capacity of the DoD when forces are engaged in Afghanistan. Conventional air strikes would have to be over a long period of time if they were going to be effective towards the objective - and even then I think most people agree that is simply a delaying effort with no tangible impact on the calculations of the Iranian government. Threaten to put a nuclear bomb on target in Tehran - and the whole world will sit up with attention. I know folks think it is crazy to suggest that nuclear weapons should be used as a stick in foreign policy - but remember that is the exact threat this whole issue is about to begin with. We are either serious people with serious solutions to serious problems - or we are not. I don't think most Americans are as serious about this issue as they pretend to be, and the vast majority have white lines and red lines they simply won't cross because they fear being judged by their peers. Yes, I truly believe that politically correct peer pressure no different than what one might find on an American high school playground is a player in international politics - and it why those who don't give a shit about peer pressure get their way in the 21st century. Iran, and North Korea, and even China to a large degree - don't give a shit what us Westerners think.

Since sanctions will not be removed, and the chances of Barack Obama making a threat to Iran with nuclear weapons is very near nill - I suspect diplomacy will fail and there will be a military confrontation with Iran over their nuclear program.

Which leads to the second question...

A recent poll of opinions in the Middle East conducted by the University of Maryland in conjunction with Zogby International is a must read, because the results are remarkable. In virtually every category the Obama administration has effectively lost every single gain made with his speech in Cairo, Egypt - meaning there has been no progress at all by this administration shaping opinions in the Middle East. Even more remarkable, the poll reveals a spectacular failure on the part of the Obama administration in regards to the Iranian nuclear program issue. The question I have regarding the results is whether the poll represents legitimacy for Iran (in the eyes of Iranian leaders) on the Arab street regarding their pursuit of nuclear weapons? I do not know that answer.

Consider the following two fictional news stories:

The United States Air Force bombed several Iranian nuclear facilities last night in a daring middle of the night raid that destroyed several dozen nuclear facilities across Iran. In response to the attack, Iran attacked several neutral flagged ships in the Persian Gulf and destroyed an oil terminal in Kuwait near where US cargo ships were docked in support of Iraq war operations. A Saudi super tanker was still burning in the Persian Gulf this morning as US Navy vessels were on the scene to extinguish the fire. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait launched a protest against the actions of the United States in the United Nations this morning, blaming the United States for the attacks against the Sunni nations around the Persian Gulf.

The Israeli Air Force overflew Saudi Arabia and bombed several Iranian nuclear facilities last night in a daring middle of the night raid that destroyed several dozen nuclear facilities across Iran. In response to the attack, Iran attacked several neutral flagged ships in the Persian Gulf and destroyed an oil terminal in Kuwait near where US cargo ships were docked in support of Iraq war operations. A Saudi super tanker was still burning in the Persian Gulf this morning as US Navy vessels were on the scene to extinguish the fire. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait launched a protest against the actions of the Israel in the United Nations this morning, blaming _____ for the attacks against the Sunni nations around the Persian Gulf.

Fill in the blank. Tell me, how exactly does Iran attack anyone besides the United States in the region in retaliation for the Israelis attacking Iran? If Iran attacks Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or any regional country other than Israel - how do they justify the attack to the Arab street? Is the average Sunni Arab going to accept the Iranian line that the Persians attacked their country because Israel bombed them first?

It is difficult to imagine how Iran can lash out against any of the Arab nations in the region after an attack by Israel without flushing Arab street opinion down the toilet. It isn't difficult to see how they might come after the US - that is believable, but the whole 'region up in flames scenario' doesn't quite register with me.

There is no doubt in my mind that the US can absolutely crush Iran. The Iranian naval and air force capabilities are only capable of achieving a major surprise attack - not of achieving success in a direct confrontation. There is no military reason why Iran couldn't be destroyed by conventional military power, but there are very serious and important political reasons why it is a very, very bad idea that the US would even think about starting a war with Iran. If we start the war, we put every one of our partners in the region at risk. The same is, to a large degree, not true if Israel starts the war - because the Sunni Arab will not accept that a Shia Persian can kill a Sunni Arabs simply because the Israeli Jew gets militant. That ain't how politics in the Middle East works.

So I firmly believe that the US will not, under any circumstances, put our Arab allies at risk to retaliation by attacking Iran. That also means the US won't be coming to the aid of Israel if they attack Iran. The only way the US enters into a war with Iran is if 1) Iran attacks us directly, or 2) if Iran attacks one of our Arab allies. Because Israel already knows this, I believe they are doing everything possible to convince us to start the war so they don't have to take the blunt of the consequences. With the latest polls showing Iran has the backing of the Arab street, I think it is a legitimate possibility that Iran wouldn't attack the US or Arab nations in the region and prefer instead to fight Israel only and primarily via proxy with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Which leads us to the final question.

Of which I believe this and this discusses an option that is not outside the realm of possibility.