The debate over military options on Iran has finally started to focus on the critical issue of deterrence — that is, can the threat of air strikes deter Iran from proceeding in its nuclear-weapons program, and if so, how? Answering that question will not be easy, for it raises a number of difficult questions that nobody is asking.
Here are two: First, what would Iran do if it thought that military strikes against its program were imminent? Second, on the heels of two failed visits by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, why are the Iranians still pretending to cooperate with the IAEA?
The first question is the simpler one. Under several outstanding U.N. Security Council resolutions, Iran is required to halt uranium enrichment. That’s what the massive diplomatic front now arrayed against Iran — including even Russia and China — agrees on. But on virtually every other issue — the proper sorts of sanctions, the possibility of military strikes — the members of that front disagree.
Advertisement
So if Iran thought it was about to get hit, it would have a simple solution: It could simply declare a suspension of uranium enrichment, and see what happens next. Many of the governments that have thus far been with us would declare victory and proclaim that military strikes are no longer needed. Many people in the U.S., and even in Israel, would say that. Once the media had had its way, what public support there was for military strikes against Iran would be severely diminished.
Long story short, if Iran declares a suspension of enrichment activity, it would certainly prevent U.S. strikes, and would almost certainly prevent even Israeli strikes. The problem is this: Iran is only partially cooperating with the IAEA. It allows inspections only at “declared” facilities — and not at facilities where nuclear activities are suspected but not declared to the IAEA. Therefore, the danger posed by Iran’s nuclear activities would hardly be diminished by a suspension of enrichment at its declared facilities, even if that suspension could be verified.
Recent high-profile trips by the IAEA raised hopes for increased transparency, but inspectors were denied access to the military base at Parchin, outside of Tehran, where the Iranians are suspected of conducting high-explosives tests necessary for a nuclear warhead. Moreover, if Iran has secret enrichment facilities — and we have already discovered one — they can freely continue to enrich their stockpile of uranium to weapons grade. Their stockpile of lightly enriched uranium is highly mobile and not constantly monitored by the IAEA; meanwhile, their development of warheads and delivery vehicles continues unimpeded.
Under these circumstances, if Iran thought an attack could be imminent, it would almost certainly declare a suspension in uranium enrichment, and present us with a huge diplomatic and strategic problem that would pose only a mild tactical problem for them.
That leads to the second and vastly more important question: Why are they continuing to cooperate with the IAEA at all?
Recall that because of its continued uranium enrichment, Iran has been continuously in breach of Chapter VII Security Council resolutions since 2007. Chapter VII resolutions, which concern “Threats to the Peace,” are clearly legally binding on Iran under Article 25 of the U.N. Charter. Iran has therefore been in flagrant breach of this solemn treaty obligation since 2007. In fact, their breach of Article 25 is so flagrant that they have essentially abrogated the Charter, and could theoretically be expelled from the United Nations. And by the way, they are also in material breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: They refuse to declare new nuclear facilities or the production of centrifuges, as the non-proliferation treaty requires non-weapons states to do.
What public support are you talking about? There isn't any public support for another war. You are trying desperately to convince us that war with Iran is necessary. Ironically, with the same WMD rhetoric you used for Iraq! Sorry, been there , done that, bought the T-Shirt. With thousands dead and thousands more wounded. And for what in the end? No tangible difference in the politics of Iraq's government.
The Iranian regime is doing what we have trained it to do over several decades. We have not killed it, we have made it stronger and showed it where and how we are weak.
If Iran manages to make an a-bomb it will find itself on the A-list of countries eligible for nuclear retaliation. Excepting Israel, no other country on the planet would launch a preemptive attack against a foe that only possesses conventional arms.
Iran has made comments about not caring if there's a nuclear retaliation,as long as Israel is destroyed. their religion mandates Armageddon to bring about the return of the 12th Imam,their Mahdi,and a new Caliphate.
also,if Iran does make a nuclear bomb,they will not hesitate to use it.
most likely an EMP attack on the US;cripple the US,perhaps eliminate it completely.
Then they can do as they please with no other Western nation able or willing to interfere.
That would also make Russia and China happy.
I note Iran has tested SCUD launches form containerships with HIGH altitude warhead detonations,characteristic of a sneak EMP attack,and with only a conventional warhead,useless for any military purpose. containerships are not needed to attack Israel,but they would allow a launch from just outside the US 200 mile limits,and then they would scuttle the ship to leave no evidence leading back to Iran.
All this is about our dear buddy Israel. We don't want anything to happen to those little darlings do we? Iran is not going to nuke Israel anyway. They can't be that stupid can they? If they do, there will be immediate retaliation anyway, and Iran must know this. But whatever happens we must stand behind Israel. This is a country whose capital city Tel Aviv is one of the biggest gathering places for Gays and Lesbians in the world. In addition, Gays and Lesbians have served openly in the Israeli Defense Force for years now. Isn't that precious?! All that really needs to be done is to somehow start a movement where Gay and Lesbian Israeli, Palestinian, and Iranians can get together and save the day. Right!?
Humpty Dumpty,
Honestly, that is one of the dummest comments I have ever read. You try to be intellectually snarky, and it just comes off as adolescent and bitter. So, in a style that you might understand...we shouldn't let our irrational hatred for Israel get in the way of an intelligent comment, now should we? How precious. And somehow pulling those weird gay comments into this discussion?
You need professional psychiatric help, man.
Your ignorance is astounding. We are discussing the possible outcomes of a nuclear armed Iran and all you can do is spew hatred against gays and lesbians and use mainstream Isreali tolerance towards them to justify us not supporting them? Any clear thinking person can see your obvious agenda behind this type of comment.
Never mind the fact that the few facts you deem fit to include in your "precious" little response are incorrect. Jerusalem, not Tel Aviv, is the capital city and seat of government for Israel. The only Israeli cabinet ministry that has its headquarters in Tel Aviv is Defense, and thats just for security precautions.
As to gay and lesbians serving in the IDF, Israel is one of the few countries with mandatory conscription of both genders. Of course there are going to be gay and lesbians. The U.S. military has many of both, and its volunteer based. At the final analysis, what is more important; someones sexual orientation or someones desire to serve their country and protect it from annihilation? I would argue the second.
"everyone who is serious and well-informed on this issue knows that Iran is developing a nuclear-weapons capability." - Just as everyone serious and well-informed knew, from the mid-1930s on, that Hitler was preparing for agression, yet all they did was to feed him Czechoslovakia. Winston Churchill called humanity "unteachable from birth till death."
"Has the Israeli 'suspected' Nuclear sites been investigated by the IAEA, or are they 'special'?"
Yes Israel is special. Israel has not signed the Non Proliferation Treaty and is therefore not subject to inspections. Those who do sign the treaty, such as Iran, are not special and get access to nuclear technology which they could not develop themselves. And they get this access on the quid pro quo basis that they will not use the technology they are given in order to produce nuclear weapons. Inspections are a consequence of this deal.
Israel has not signed up for it, it did not get help, so it does not need to allow inspections to check what it is using its nuclear technology for. Get it? Iran did sign, they did get the help and they got in in return for a promise they never intended to keep.
"Prudence and precaution argue for a clear deterrent threat of military action in the near term if Iran does not transparently abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons"
Doesn't seem to be slowing them down much.
The Iranian Special Groups in Iraq were a good reason for action against Iran. So were the long list of Iranian terrorist and unlawful, unprovoked unconventional attacks from the embassy takeover right up through the present day. Iran's history of attacking other countries through proxies and covert elements makes for a good enough reason to take the fight to them. However, we used up most the political capital for such a move during the last decade.
Nuclear Iran does not pose a danger to the USA! The problem with Iran having a nuke is not that it will attack the USA or Israel (that has several hundred nukes). Also the probability of an Iran nuke getting to terrorists is infinitely smaller than the probability of one of the thousands of nuclear warheads left in former Soviet republics (or from North Korea) being sold to terrorists. The apparent problem is that the USA and Israel would not be able to attack a nuclear Iran whenever they feel like it. By getting nuclear weapons Iran ensures its independence while endangering no one!
Also, Iran has not started a war or attacked another country in modern history – while both the USA and Israel have done it!
This is one of the weakest arguments for war I have ever read. Colin Powell did much better selling Iraq's WMDs to the U.N.
Basically Mr. Loyola says we should get ready for war because no "serious" person believes Iran is not seeking a nuke. Yet there is no evidence of nuke-building. So the threshold is reduced to nuclear "capability", which is pretty much indistinguishable from developing nuclear energy for peaceful ends. We then have to divine whether it makes sense for Iran to get electricity from nuclear plants. Mr. Loyola therefore assumes the role of Iranian chief economist, deciding which sources this country should use to generate its electricity. And so on and so forth, the neocons desperately try to sell a war Americans are not buying, precisely because such arguments are still fresh in their minds from the Iraq trillion-dollar debacle.
"Letting the timing of U.S. or Israeli strikes turn on whether Iran has finally decided to build a bomb makes as much sense as waiting until you know for sure that the person holding a gun to your head has fully decided to pull the trigger before defending yourself."
Well, actually, it's like sitting in a house with 8,500 guns and, on hearing that the guy down the street is thinking about buying a pistol, wondering how you're going to defend yourself.
