Is There A Middle Ground In Dealing With The Threat Of A Nuclear Iran?
Nov 9th, 2011 | 21 responses
With United Nations weapons inspectors expected to say that they have substantial new evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear device in a much-leaked forthcoming report, is there a middle ground for the U.S. and its allies between going to war and trying to keep diplomatic channels open?
The war option is favored by the usual suspects including most Republican presidential candidates, the neocon brain trust that persuaded the Bush administration to tragically screw the pooch in Iraq and Israel sycophants. And make no mistake, we’re not talking about surgical air strikes which may or may not disable the Islamic Republic’s nuclear research and manufacturing facilities, we’re talking about another all-out war in the Middle East. Repeat: We’re talking about another all-out war in the Middle East.
A war that inevitably will include retaliation strikes on Israel, the blockage of most U.S.-bound oil shipments from the region, further legitimization of Iran among Muslim nations, and an inevitably unhappy outcome. It will not include the U.N.’s imprinteur because Russia and China, which are urging that the report be kept secret, won’t play along.
The diplomatic option has been favored by the Obama administration, but as has been the case with North Korea, the world’s other nuclear bad boy, has been a dry well, and the response of Irani President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said the U.N. should be investigating the U.S.’s nuclear arsenal, was par for the course.
An alternative to war and talk would be to try to further ratchet up sanctions on Iran.
Years of sanctions have hurt Iraq have not brought the country to its knees, while efforts to sabotage its nuclear program have been only partially successful.
21 Responses to “Is There A Middle Ground In Dealing With The Threat Of A Nuclear Iran?”
The theory du jour is that the ‘middle ground’ is to publicly distance ourselves from Israel while actually using them as a proxy to attack Iran. Who knows?
Well, Iran, nukes, ME, military strategy, etc etc, I think this is not the format for intelligently discussing this issue.
I’ve always thought that non-proliferation was a crazy issue. Basically, all the nations with nukes, who get the benefits of having nukes like having a seat at the big table in world prestige and negotiations, want all the nations that don’t have nukes to never get them. It is clearly in a nation’s interest to obtain nuclear weapons in order to be taken seriously. What could we possibly offer a nation that is worth more than they get with nukes?
So since we have long since established that we are not going to invade just based on the development of nukes, we are just hoping that whoever it is just decides to change their mind and screw themselves. Again, never got why we would expect a nation to stop development unless we start blowing up their cities.
I would not want to see Iran get nuclear weapons but I worry more about Pakistan. The problem with hitting Iran’s facilities is it would result in a major war which Israel could start but would be unable to finish. The war would spread and much of the ME oil would be cut off. The world economy would grind to a halt while war spending would skyrocket. The US and the world cannot afford a military “solution”.
Some of the candidates have stated that they would support Israel’s targeted strikes aimed at the nuclear program if diplomatic efforts failed. Now, you might believe it would escalate to more than that, and you might be right, but your statement is extremely misleading, making it seems as though the candidates are calling for all-out war.
My source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/us/politics/Republican-Candidates-Talk-Tough-on-Iran.html
(emphasis added)
If I didn’t have to spend so much time correcting facts, maybe we could actually have an interesting discussion about the issue.
adelinesdad:
For your sake I’ll reply that I’ve been properly chastened.
For the record, my post is accurate and if you want to confirm that most GOP presidential wannabes would take or reserve the military option, tune in to tonight’s debate. That is if there’s time leftover after discussing Pizza Man.
If things are coming to a head in Iran, the last thing we need is another GOP president with his hand on the trigger. All the new candidates seem to pretty much want to double down on the policies of the Bush administration, which I feel would be a disaster for this country, again. Unless somehow Huntsman gets the job, we, the ME, and the world are better off letting Obama handle this.
“the last thing we need is another GOP president with his hand on the trigger” – slamfu
“The US and the world cannot afford a military “solution”.” – Ron
Megadittos. If we (as people, as a nation, as a species) don’t start using our brains to solve big problems (for a change) then we will be toast.
The sanctions so far has clearly been nothing the regime can’t live with. The only way for sanctions to work would be full blown sanctions (perhaps even to the point of banning Iranian oil). Though even that is likely to be undermined by Russia and China. And even sanctions like this have a mixed record on results, and even getting limited sanctions is like pulling teeth.
I do agree that a military option is likely very messy. I don’t know about full fledged war, but one should be prepared to see, for example, a stop to shipping in the gulf.
Which often leads me to wonder if the Middle East (both Arabs and Israelis) isn’t doomed. I just don’t see any will to do anything that might stop Iran from getting a bomb. The chances that an Iranian bomb might in up in the hands of someone like Hezbollah are real (and, in the end, an Iranian bomb will be the death of non-proliferation efforts and so if Iran doesn’t do it, someone else will). The resulting nuclear exchange will devastate the area.
Sometimes I wonder if our efforts shouldn’t be directed at finding ways of drilling for oil on a radioactive desert.
Yea Hezbollah will deliver a nuke on Katyusha rocket.
Shaun,
Are you backtracking now from the GOP “favoring” the war option to holding it in “reserve”? If so, I’ll just note, as the NYT article I quoted did, that Obama does that too.
I’m not trying to say that the GOP isn’t more hawkish than the Democrats on this issue. By all means, vote accordingly. Nevertheless, the claim in your original post that all-out war is the favored option of the GOP candidates remains flatly untrue for at least 3 reasons: generally speaking, they favor diplomacy/sanctions first, they want an engagement (if necessary) limited to their nuclear capabilities, and they want the US to operate in a support role with Israel taking the lead.
Or smuggle it in, or use a inflatable raft, maybe someone gives them another way, maybe they just take the time and effort to make a bigger rocket than they have before, or maybe they just do something we haven’t thought of.
I’m not sure why we are suppose to think there are no worries about Hezbollah having a nuke just because it won’t fit on the rocks they have fired so far.
As far as Iran giving a nuclear bomb to either Hamas or Hezballah – they are not that crazy. If a nuclear bomb went off in Israel, Iran and/or Pakistan would be radioactive toast. They would be the two likely suspects and Israel would not hesitate 30 seconds in returning that misery a hundredfold.
Well, I’m not so complacent with the idea that a country where the leadership is from a tradition that regards making martyrs of their own people as a reasonable thing. This is the country that sent their own people in human waves in the Iran-Iraq war and where a cleric in the government talked about how many millions dead would be worth the destruction of Israel. And that doesn’t even assume that, in the fractious Iranian government, the decision won’t get made by some hard core faction.
And that assumes they don’t give a nuke to someone just so they can “threaten”, only to find that they don’t have as much control as they thought. But even if Iran doesn’t do it, their getting the bomb will show that there is no real barrier to obtaining nuclear weapons, resulting the death of non-proliferation efforts. So you have to wonder if every other country that follows the same path will be as responsible.
The bottom line is that if I lived in a country that was in the cross-hairs, I would find such assurances to be cold comfort. And this is why Obama modified, not abandoned, Bush’s program to be able to stop missiles from Iran.
Noting user Ron Beasley’s remark, yes, Pakistan is worse than Iran.
However, that should not be misinterpreted to mean Iran is benign.
Israel won’t allow it. Period. Do you think a people that have already suffered a holocaust are going to allow Iran the ability to build nuclear weapons? No way. There will be military strikes against Iran, it will happen.
I am generally on the side of the Palestinians when it comes to the current problems in the region, but I fully support Israeli military action against Iran’s nuclear program.
adelinesdad… it appears to me that a gifted writer with strong political leanings, who stays up late and turns out an above average amount of opinion pieces, is going to make statements that don’t hold water.
I appreciate your setting the record straight with regards to the stated positions of the Repub candidate towards military action against Iran.
I would also state that I have read that the Saudi’s and other countries in the Middle East are not Iranian allies since they see them as possible conquerors, and are not all that opposed to Israel taking their nuc facility out.
Furthermore, Iran has almost no retalitory capabilities. A large army? Yes. Refined fuels for military vehciles? No. Capable rockets? No. A capable Navy to block oil? No.
Any counter attack on Israel would be met with massive, massive firepower, and, posssibly, tactical nuclear weapons without anyone coming to Iran’s aid… except maybe Venezuela.
Iran uses these groups as pests against the elephant in the ME. Nukes and their development are VERY expensive. Why wouldn’t Iran go the route of biological or chemical weapons? Until Iran starts up a breeder reactor and makes WG plutonium, their nukes will be low grade/yield U235 bombs. Unless Pakistan supplied the plans to enhanced U235(or Pu-239) implosion bombs. U235 can be used in implosion devises, but they’re bigger and less efficient.
John Johnson – First of all Iran has more than 50 nuclear sites, many of them buried. The IAF is good but they are not capable of a sustained bombing mission. My nephew flys one of their few F-15′s, the only ones capable of delivering bunker busters. The IAF brass is very much against a solo Israeli bombing mission. The combination of 2 air refueling sessions per aircraft plus Iran’s s-300′s that they bought from Belarus would mean unacceptable high losses to IAF planes. The war planning within the IAF indicates, at best, 25-30% of the nuclear targets will be damaged.
An air raid against Iran will cause a quick and mass movement of their nuclear capabilities to their new facility inside a mountain at Qom. That facility would require multiple nuclear bombs to disable.
As far as Iran’s retaliatory capabilities perhaps one should look up the capabilities of the supersonic Sunburn anti-ship missile. It will close the Straits of Hormuz and cut off 50% of the world’s oil. Think of what $200-$300/bl oil will do to the worlds economy.
A war with Iran will be a disaster for not only Iran but also Israel as rockets rain down from Hamas and Hezballah. Elements of the Egyptian and Lebanese armies will revolt and join their fellow arabs in fighting the inevitable Israeli assaults. In addition West Bank and Israeli Palestinians will fight a rear guard action against Israel. This war could last years and Israel, forced to use their reserve units, would implode economically with emigration becoming a flood.
jdledell…after the U.S. pullout, Israel will fly straight across Iraq to Iran. They won’t be going sraight toward nuclear sites until peripheral targets are destroyed. They won’t be going in with large tankers sitting in the Straits like sitting ducks that can be sink and plug up the route. All these things, I’m sure, are being considered and coordinated.
They will fight it out with all in the area who enter the fray, and expect us to insure that others stay out of it.
The Israeli hold card? Tactical nuclear weapons…and they will use them if they have to.
That’s my take.
I agree with JJ…I am sure that the US and Israel have already worked out an attack plan, 1000 different scenarios, for Iran. They’ve had decades to figure this stuff out.
…and Israel will go nuclear if need be…
sure, we can kiss the world economy bye bye, but I would be willing to risk it if I were in their shoes.