With the International Atomic Energy Agency about to release a new report detailing the military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program, the ground is slipping away underneath the feet of those claiming there is no reason for alarm about the issue. As a “news analysis” by David E. Sanger in today’s New York Times points ou,t recent developments undercut the arguments of those who say that a nuclear Iran can be contained. Even more troubling for Washington is, as Sanger writes, time may also be running out for covert efforts aimed at sabotaging Iran’s program.
Though Barack Obama has pledged that he will never allow Iran to go nuclear, the question today is what the U.S. is prepared to do about it even once the IAEA makes it clear there is no longer any doubt about Tehran’s intentions. That leaves Washington with a few unpalatable choices.
The tough international sanctions needed to stop Iran are certain to be blocked by Russia and China. The United States could enact more unilateral sanctions such as a ban on transactions with Iran’s central bank. But even that move, which should be done, won’t be enough. Sanger is right to note that the only measure that could actually force the ayatollahs’ hands is a ban on oil imports from Iran. But with good reason, he doubts that an administration already worried about a shaky economy will do anything that could raise oil prices in an election year.
The idea that covert activities such as the Stuxnet virus could solve the problem was also always an illusion. So, too, is the hope that assassinations of Iranian scientists could stop Iran. In both cases, such efforts may have delayed Iran’s progress, but the clock is still counting down toward the moment when the Islamist regime will be able to announce their first successful test of a nuclear device.
It is this dilemma that has given rise to another round of rumors about Israel taking military action to deal with this threat. No one believes for a minute Obama will ever use force to stop Iran even if he has promised that it would not get a bomb on his watch. And with Iran taking defensive measures that will make it harder in the future for their nuclear facilities to be attacked, the pressure to act sooner rather than later is clear. Iranian actions, such as the Washington terrorist plot, also undermine the notion that they are a stable regime that can be successfully contained.
Both Republicans and Democrats have paid lip service to the idea of stopping Iran from getting nukes. But in the coming 12 months, as Americans prepare to choose a president in an election in which economic issues will predominate, the country may be ignoring a critical threat that cannot be delayed or ignored much longer.
For the last 20 years, all Iran has heard from the U.S. and other nuclear powers is threats of war. Why wouldn’t Iran want a nuclear weapon to protect itself? Maybe talking might get us farther than saber rattling; it helped us avoid war with nuclear powers like the Soviet Union and China. n nIf Iran must be opposed militarily, let a nuclear power like Israel or a coalition of the Gulf states oppose Iran. Iran is oceans and continents away from the United States. Why is American blood and treasure required? We cannot afford it, and we have already lost thousands of young men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. n nA nation like Iran, that "cannot even provide gasoline" for its people is hardly poised to become an expansionist empire. Our war in Iraq gave Iran more influence in Iraq, and near sovereignty in southern Iraq. We continue to fight in Afghanistan and bomb Pakistan. By destabilizing Iran's neighbors, U.S. policy is enabling Iranian expansionism. The U.S. policy makers are facilitating the very ends they claim to oppose. n nA re-evaluation of our policies in the Middle East, and toward Iran, is long overdue.
If Iran attacks Israel preemptively w/nukes US response will be irrelevant. Israel has independent submarine-based nuclear weapons. We enter "we'll meet again" Dr. Strangelove/On the Beach limbo. Words and blogs will blow away like yesterday's leaves in the autumnal wind. n nIn the meantime don't look to the jooz to pull the West's chestnuts out of the fire. After all is adi and done by Jonathan Tobin, Peres, Barak, Bibi and all the other public commenters and commentators in Israel and the free world, Israel may just wait this one out.
Israel really is in a no-win situation. It is not a question of pulling "chestnuts out of the fire" for the West. Israel has every reason to view a deranged Regime in Tehran with nukes as an unacceptable, existential threat. On the other hand, every scenario I have seen for attacking Iran from Israel, short of a nuclear attack, requires sending planes over Iraq at various points which means passing through U.S.-monitored airspace. Iraq itself doesn't have much of an airforce yet to contend with but the U.S. certainly does and it is far from certain that Obama would allow Israeli jets to pass through unmolested. Even if Israel could go thru Saudi airspace, it would be an extended air campaign to take out Iraqi sites without using nukes to get at the underground facilities. But Israel cannot "just wait this one out." The U.S. is simply not going to do anything. n nNo good options.
Mr. Tobin, if the measure of taking action against Iran is the negative effect on global oil prices then there is absolutely no chance of any, effective action being taken. Any effective action against Iran will inevitably cause the price of oil to explode. There is absolutely no way around this. n nOf course, in an ideal world, the U.S. would have leadership that recognizes that short term pain must sometimes be endured when vital interests are at stake. Keeping nukes out of the hands of the Tehran Regime is vital. (Otherwise U.S. leaders from Clinton to Obama should not be using the word "unacceptable" in this context). You would think that this is the kind of thing that a strategic oil reserve would be designed to offset. That and putting the full court press on Saudi Arabia to flood the world market with surplus oil production in anticipation of a conflict and the possible reduction in supply for a matter of weeks. n nI realize we most definitely do not live in an ideal world.
For sure that's a completely different kettle of fish–imo the the huge unknowns weigh against not for an Israeli preemptive attack. n nLet alone becoming involved in an Iranian-Israeli confrontation on Israel's side, the US could militarily block an Israeli preemptive attack it was aware of. I think the scenario that Israel will needlessly drag the United States into an unnecessary and morally unjustified war against Iran is unlikely. I think Israel has a moral right of preemptive attack myself but sincerely doubt that Obama would permit it if he could stop it or side with Israel afterwards if he couldn't. Given realities Israel may rely on containment like everybody else. The most certain victim of conflict with Iran following a preemptive attack is not America or the Saudiis but an Israel targeted by Hamas and Hezbollah and Hezbollah has a lethal reactive rocket capability. n nIf Israel makes the call, for Israel, this would be an existential and justified war; for Israel Iran has no special "right of defense" or right to acquire nuclear weapons given its stated goals to destroy Israel, its support of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, etc. (and various degrees of Western shilly-shallying and enabling of the Iranian nuke program through wasted "engagement", inconstant sanctions, violation of sanctions (with China and Russia) or sustaining of Iranian industry with multi-billion dollar trade and energy deals. n nIf Israel makes that call. They may decide its a containable bluff. n nBut who wouldn't be astounded, and amazed if Obama entered the fray, if Iran avoided directly striking American and Gulf targets. n nAfter all, Obama annot be counted on to decisively respond to Iran if Iran develops a nuke secretly and targets Tel Aviv. n nHopefully he would respond if Iran directly nuked NY.