What Next?
Unsurprisingly, Iran has rejected the U.N.'s August 22nd ultimatum. Unsurprisingly, the Security Council looks helpless to take decisive action due to China's and Russia's intransigence. What next? How effective will American/European sanctions be while China remains dependent on Iranian oil?
Here are my thoughts on the situation:
First, it seems as though diplomacy is not going to work. Iran is emboldened by Hezbollah's "success" in Israel, the disintegration of U.S. influence in Iraq, and its ability to trick/manipulate the U.N.. I would not be surprised if the U.S. carries out limited airstrikes on selected Iranian targets before 2008. If not the U.S., then Israel by 2010.
Second, Iran's army is notoriously weak. While the addition of nuclear weapons to their arsenal will make them, essentially, untouchable, their current conventional forces are limited and outdated. This makes U.S. intervention a greater possibility.
Third, while U.S. intervention does remain a possibility, the threat to American interests posed by attacking Iran are quite high. Oil prices will inevitably shoot out the roof and terrorist attacks on American sites throughout the world will increase significantly. In particular, U.S. forces in Iraq will become prime targets (although it seems unlikely that Iran will want to push the Iraq situation into total chaos.) Hezbollah will strike Israel again, hard, and I wouldn't be surprised if a task-force of Iranian Republican Guards are dispatched to organize small scale terrorist strikes against American interests around the world.
Fourth, while striking Iran's nuclear sites before they become fully operational is a possibility, I am not convinced this will permanently disrupt their nuclear ambitions. The democratization of nuclear technology makes it nearly inevitable that capable and dedicated regimes, who have already achieved a fair degree of regional influence and power, will eventually acquire nuclear weapons. It simply depends on a) how strongly Iran sees its success and survival as dependent on their acquisition and b) how they view their chances of getting away with it. The more the U.S. touts regime change and pre-emption the more likely a) becomes. The more the U.N. falters, the more likely b) becomes. Unfortunately, it seems the only real solution to the crisis would be regime change, although this is clearly a pratical impossibility. And while the remaining solution lies with the U.N, their incapacity to force Iran bodes poorly for a diplomatic solution.
Thus, our response to Iran needs to be framed within a serious consideration of which would be worse: the possibility of a nuclear armed, belligerent Iran and the threat of a new regional arms race this poses or an inevitably destabilizing military strike and the international economic disruption and terrorist threats to U.S. interests around the globe it would create.
Journalists and strategists have been weighing these two sides of the coin for the past few years (see particularly the Atlantic's December 2004 coverage of Iran war-games). What I have not yet seen, however, is a serious Plan-B. That is, how to contain, weaken, and isolate a nuclear armed Iran such that its weapons pose little threat to the region, Israel, or the West. I am convinced Iran will have the bomb within a few years (perhaps decades if the U.S. does strike) and that American policy should be equally concerned with this inevitably as with preventing/postponing its realization. Indeed, it seems that U.S. policy throughout the coming century should be more concerned with containment, isolation, and balancing of nuclear powers than with pre-emptive elimination of their nuclear projects. The spread of nuclear weapons will become easier and easier throughout the 21st century and, as the U.S.'s hegemonic reach diminishes and the center of world gravity continues to shift towards the East, pre-emptive war will increasingly become an impossibility.
It is time to envision a world, and the possibility of a peaceful world, with a nuclear armed theocracy.
It's a scary thought and will require courage, humility, and patience to address its possibility.
Here are my thoughts on the situation:
First, it seems as though diplomacy is not going to work. Iran is emboldened by Hezbollah's "success" in Israel, the disintegration of U.S. influence in Iraq, and its ability to trick/manipulate the U.N.. I would not be surprised if the U.S. carries out limited airstrikes on selected Iranian targets before 2008. If not the U.S., then Israel by 2010.
Second, Iran's army is notoriously weak. While the addition of nuclear weapons to their arsenal will make them, essentially, untouchable, their current conventional forces are limited and outdated. This makes U.S. intervention a greater possibility.
Third, while U.S. intervention does remain a possibility, the threat to American interests posed by attacking Iran are quite high. Oil prices will inevitably shoot out the roof and terrorist attacks on American sites throughout the world will increase significantly. In particular, U.S. forces in Iraq will become prime targets (although it seems unlikely that Iran will want to push the Iraq situation into total chaos.) Hezbollah will strike Israel again, hard, and I wouldn't be surprised if a task-force of Iranian Republican Guards are dispatched to organize small scale terrorist strikes against American interests around the world.
Fourth, while striking Iran's nuclear sites before they become fully operational is a possibility, I am not convinced this will permanently disrupt their nuclear ambitions. The democratization of nuclear technology makes it nearly inevitable that capable and dedicated regimes, who have already achieved a fair degree of regional influence and power, will eventually acquire nuclear weapons. It simply depends on a) how strongly Iran sees its success and survival as dependent on their acquisition and b) how they view their chances of getting away with it. The more the U.S. touts regime change and pre-emption the more likely a) becomes. The more the U.N. falters, the more likely b) becomes. Unfortunately, it seems the only real solution to the crisis would be regime change, although this is clearly a pratical impossibility. And while the remaining solution lies with the U.N, their incapacity to force Iran bodes poorly for a diplomatic solution.
Thus, our response to Iran needs to be framed within a serious consideration of which would be worse: the possibility of a nuclear armed, belligerent Iran and the threat of a new regional arms race this poses or an inevitably destabilizing military strike and the international economic disruption and terrorist threats to U.S. interests around the globe it would create.
Journalists and strategists have been weighing these two sides of the coin for the past few years (see particularly the Atlantic's December 2004 coverage of Iran war-games). What I have not yet seen, however, is a serious Plan-B. That is, how to contain, weaken, and isolate a nuclear armed Iran such that its weapons pose little threat to the region, Israel, or the West. I am convinced Iran will have the bomb within a few years (perhaps decades if the U.S. does strike) and that American policy should be equally concerned with this inevitably as with preventing/postponing its realization. Indeed, it seems that U.S. policy throughout the coming century should be more concerned with containment, isolation, and balancing of nuclear powers than with pre-emptive elimination of their nuclear projects. The spread of nuclear weapons will become easier and easier throughout the 21st century and, as the U.S.'s hegemonic reach diminishes and the center of world gravity continues to shift towards the East, pre-emptive war will increasingly become an impossibility.
It is time to envision a world, and the possibility of a peaceful world, with a nuclear armed theocracy.
It's a scary thought and will require courage, humility, and patience to address its possibility.
posted by James at 3:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home