As Terrill and Crane put it, this problem is one of those the solution to which "must be kicked down the road"

In fact, one of their colleagues made that very point months ago in the New Republic.


Strike Out
by Michael J. Mazarr


Again analysts cannot ignore the geopolitical-military strategic context obtaining right now.

That would be too easy.


Time to kick this can/

Back in the mid-1990s, there were initial negotiations about a WMD free zone in the Middle East, not as immediately  achievable but as a goal that could be envisioned and started to be mapped out. This is something that eventually needs to be back on the agenda, and hard as it is today it'd be virtually impossible with the chain reaction a nuclear Iran would set off.

Not necessarily.  It may be that a nuclear Iran would be just the spur that is needed to force leaders inside and outside the Middle East region to get serious about creating such a nuclear-free zone.  Certainly, there is little else that would get Israel to the table.

Also, it is not obvious that a nuclear Iran would spark a regional wave of nuclear proliferation.  For one thng, Iran might well take preemptive action against any regional rival that tried to proliferate, or otherwise successfully deter them.  More likely, those rivals may choose to rely instead on the United States and other outside powers to deter Iran and guarantee their own security.  They have a lot to trade for that protection.  Indeed, the prospect that a nuclear Iran would drive even deeper US entanglement in that region is one of the best reasons to worry about it.

So, as far as the goal of nuclear nonproliferation goes, it is not clear what approach to Iran would best serve this goal.  I am inclined to the view that each additional nuclear power increases the danger.  But it is not obvious that this is true.

I would say there are several very good reasons to worry about a nuclear Iran, but they all come down to this: Nuclear weapons would substantially increase Iranian power, which is already on the rise, and allow it to aspire to the role of regional superpower.  And there is hardly any nation in the world, outside of Iran itself, whose strategic interests are served by the growth of Iran into a regional superpower.

One frequently hears the suggestion that it doesn’t matter to us who owns and controls the oil in the oil-producing regions of the world.  So long as those places are reasonably stable, and have governments capable of securing their oilfields and their production infrastructure, the oil will continue to flow.  The profit motive will drive the owners to sell their oil on the open market to the highest bidder, where we can buy it.

This strikes me as a terribly naïve view, rooted in a failure of imagination.  Consider the following counterexample: the United States did not sell computer technology to the Soviet Union and its allies at a market-set price, although there was surely much demand in those places for that technology.  The short-term commercial profits to be won through technology sales were judged inferior to the strategic profit of keeping the Soviet military and economy stuck in a lower gear of information productivity.

Consider now some regional Iranian superpower, with strategic control of the region’s petroleum resources, and reflect on the fact that the world’s military machines run on oil.  At some point the Iranian strategic calculus may very well shift, and the value of the profits to be garnered from selling the oil to the highest bidder on the open market will seem to be outweighed by strategic value of selling it to a more limited circle of buyers, at perhaps a lower price, but in the process starving the US military machine.

The way we guarantee ourselves a supply of oil is by having allies and security clients, such as Saudi Arabia, where the combination of the profit motive and the need for protection governs their thinking.  And if several friendly nations are already selling us oil, then even in the unfriendly countries the profit motive takes over, since strategic embargos are unworkable.

Until some combination of national will and individual genius here in the US succeeds in developing powerful and viable alternative energy technologies that can relieve us of our fatal addiction to oil, strategic considerations related to petroleum will continue to plague us.  Those interests would not be served at all by the presence of an Iranian superpower in the Middle East.  They are served by seeing petroleum resources in the hands of several different sovereign states, whose relations are determined by a regional balance of power.

If the Middle East did not possess anything we needed, it should not matter much to us who controlled the region politically and militarily.  But they do have something we need, and so we can’t afford to ignore the issue.  This sickens me.  The whole idea that the property of other people should constitute for us a “vital national interest” strikes me as a repulsive and dishonorable situation.  And the fact that our national leaders seem so little concerned with ending this intolerable situation represents a deplorable failure of our politics.  But until we figure out how to do this, we are forced to care about petroleum.  The Europeans and the Chinese are forced to care as well, which is why we have the makings of a rough agreement on international policy toward Iran.

But, let's return to the issue of the need to turn back the tide of nuclear proliferation.  Nuclear proliferation is, in itself, a fearsome prospect.  Since the end of the Cold War, a lot of Americans – particularly younger Americans it seems to me – have grown shockingly complacent about the spread of nuclear weapons.  Despite the best efforts of strategists and diplomats to maintain the balance of power and preserve the peace, wars do occur – and when they occur, the carnage that results is a function of the destructive capabilities of the warring countries armed forces and armaments.  Balance of power considerations being equal, a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons is a more dangerous place then a world armed only with tanks, planes and other conventional armaments.

During the Cold War, we came close on a handful of occasions to catastrophe.  There were then only a few nuclear players, and two main alliances.  A world with 15, or 25 or 50 nuclear powers, and fragmented, multipolar power blocs, will be a frightfully dangerous place.  When deterrence fails, as it always eventually does, all hell will literally break loose.

At some point the Iranian strategic calculus may very well shift, and the value of the profits to be garnered from selling the oil to the highest bidder on the open market will seem to be outweighed by strategic value of selling it to a more limited circle of buyers, at perhaps a lower price, but in the process starving the US military machine.

"The United States" does not purchase oil from countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. We don't have a nationalized petroleum industry. Instead, US based corporations, many with foreign stockholders, purchase oil for their own profit making businesses. This is generally true of the whole international oil market. The analogy to computers is a bad one. Oil is freely sold and purchased around the world, so that the ultimate destination of that oil is unknown to the original seller of it. The effect of not having friendly relations with Saudi Arabia, for example, is that US corporations will have a much harder time making sweetheart deals for the oil pumped in Saudi Arabia, and will therefore make a lower profit on the oil products they sell. That doesn't worry me.

=== The way we guarantee ourselves a supply of oil is by having allies and security clients, such as Saudi Arabia, where the combination of the profit motive and the need for protection governs their thinking. ===

How about we get to work, right now, on breaking our addiction to oil?  We will have to do it within 50 years anyway, why not over the next 10 years?   Have the USG start by placing an order for 200,000 electric cars each from GM and Ford (maybe Chrysler).  Every 5th electric meter or street pole to have a battery recharging station within 2 years.  $1 billion prize for the first company to put a usable SmartCar on the US roads.   $0.05 increase in gasoline tax every other month for the next 5 years.  Stop killing Amtrak.  Stop letting the freight roads attack the commuter service that is left.  Finish all the outstanding light rail expansion projects within 5 years.  Side benefit:  huge jump-start to the US economy.

It would be like a root canal:  very very unpleasant for a period of time.  Then:  a lifetime of relief. 

BTW, most of the imported oil the US consumes physically comes from Venezula.

sPh 

It doesn't matter what kind of wild rhetoric the President of Iran spouts. I sincerely doubt he wants Persia turned into glowing radioactive glass.

This is why folks like Jentleson are so eager to paint Iran and North Korea as irrational.  You have to establish their craziness, their obvious lack of concern for their lives or their countries, in order to really put the fear on.  Strangely, none of the countries that already have nuclear weapons are run by madmen -- only the countries that are (allegedly) developing nuclear weapons are crazy.  Again, I wonder how that works out.  It seems a fool proof symptom of insanity: try to acquire nuclear weapons, and voila -- you're barking mad.  

Responding to Bruce's points:
1) Yes Ahmadinejad's not a very pleasant fellow. But unless he is either insane, or very badly informed, nuclear weapons will simply mean he has more influence.
2) Well, the chain reaction of proliferation was begun much earlier by 2 events: Israel and the Iraq invasion. The fact is that the Arab countries, if they weren't in our pocket our under occupation, would have wanted exactly the same thing to protect them against U.S. invasion and Israeli attack. Until the issue of Israel and American 'preemption' goes away, the nuke issue won't.
3) Multilateralism is the nice idea that the world's major powers can get together, make the rules, and enforce those rules. If powers can't agree, that just means they can't agree. Multilateralism has nothing to do with it. And frankly, most multilateral behavior has been far from benign.
4) No Iran would not want to go back, at least not for a while. Oil ensures they will have plenty of friends if the west abandons them. Unless you can convince China (and Russia) that a nuclear Iran is a threat, it just won't happen. Qaddafi was small, weak and isolated. Iran is not.
Unless we come up with a workable world order on nuclear weapons, there will be more Irans in the future. Then again, maybe if major powers led by example, rather than force or coercion, there might be a chance of such a thing occurring.

In fact, while I don't doubt that the Iranian government would like several nuclear weapons in order to counter Israel's possession of same, which would give them slightly more freedom of movement in the geopolitical sense, it is likely that the primary reason for their nuclear program is to generate more electricity - so they can sell more of their oil overseas.

Obviously the US oil companies would like to see them sell LESS oil overseas as that would increase the price - just as the Iraq war has done very nicely, leading to record profits for the oil companies that Bush's relatives and cronies just happen to have investments in.

The other utterly obvious reason for this anti-Iran stance is Israel, which owns US foreign policy and would obviously be inconvenienced in their attempts to drive out the Palestinians and take over the bulk of the Middle East given a nuclear-armed Iran.

This stuff is so obvious it's pathetic that people are still digging up reasons why a nuclear-armed Iran must be prevented at all costs.

As far Israel giving up on stopping Iran, an article in today's Sunday Times states that Israel has initiated planning for a military strike on Iran to be done in March after the latest IAEA report then. The order has gone out to prepare for air and special forces ground attacks on Iran. Sharon has reiterated that they will NOT accept a nuclear Iran.

The problem for Israel is that their air forces cannot operate for any length of time over Iran due to distance problems. Their forces also cannot hit all of the targets needed to be hit without additional support.

That support will be provided by US carriers and air bases in the Middle East (probably including Iraq.) This will result in Iran firing back at US ships and bases - which is exactly the excuse Bush wants to attack Iran with nuclear weapons - a plan already in the making as reports from the Pentagon have established.

In other words, far from de-escalating the Middle East wars and seeking stability, the neocons are going all out to destabilize EVERYTHING in the Middle East - all for the benefit of Israel and the oil companies and their own ideology of US empire.

Anybody who thinks the war is winding down in Iraq is living in a fool's paradise. It's about to be expanded in Iraq and in Iran, and will probably result in hundreds of thousands of deaths (both US and Iraqi and Iranian) as the Shia in Iraq ally with Iran in attacking the US troops in Iraq, and the Iranians shut down the Persian Gulf to all oil shipments and support attacks on Israel by the Hizballah in Lebanon and elsewhere. Syria may become involved as well, since the US obviously wants regime change there.

The neocons don't care that the US military is dangerously overstretched and can't handle a major war with Iran at this point. They literally DO NOT CARE. They have three more years of Bush as President in which to achieve their goals - and if Bush is not impeached, they will continue to destroy the Middle East, destroy civil liberties in the US, and destroy the US economy. 

Better start stocking up on gasoline for next summer - there won't be any at the pump.

If Iran goes nuclear, the risks are higher that for a combination of insecurity and prestige other countries in the region will seek their own WMD. And I don't just mean Israel and its presumed existing nuclear weapons. Put your bets on Iraq under President Mokhtada al-Sadr (a separate discussion, of course).

Muqtada Sadr, President of Iran?

Talk about a dark horse!  


At any rate, it isn't a separate discussion.


That's the problem with this one, of course

How about we get to work, right now, on breaking our addiction to oil?  We will have to do it within 50 years anyway, why not over the next 10 years?

I'm with you sPh; but I'm sure you are as depressed as I am by the reflection that it is very unlikely that we will get started on such a project at any time during the next three years.

Cole:

In February of 2004 I got a long message that maintained that Muqtada al-Sadr's movement was dissipating and that the US was about to put $18 billion of reconstruction money into Iraq, which would jump-start the economy, draw off dissidents, and make the place peaceful and flourishing. Two months later the entire South and Baghdad were in flames as Muqtada's Mahdi Army fought the Coalition military for two solid months. The security situation has never allowed the reconstruction aid to be invested in a way that would lead to development and away from guerrilla war. And virtually everything this seasoned US observer on the ground in provincial Iraq had predicted to me turned out to be a pipe dream. The pipe dreams spring eternal, but they are mirages. In the near to medium term, those Americans who rush through the desert sands in the torrid miasma of the Iraqi midday sun, seeking to throw themselves into the shimmering lakes of peace and prosperity just over the horizon, will be found later at the foot of a dune, lips cracked and skin blackened, their eyeballs the food of scorpions and lizards.

After we agree to be concerned, alarmed, shocked or whatever by Iran and its desire to become nuclear capable lets look at US options to prevent this.

First there is a fundamental brick wall in that Iran has never signed anything that prohibits Iran from being nuclear capable.  Iran has never signed anything that says Iran can not have the complete fuel cycle.  Iran has never signed anything that says that Iran could not leave the NPT if it felt its security was threatened and build a weapon.

As concerned and alarmed as I concede you are, Iran living up to its international obligations is in no way inconsistent with Iran having a full fuel cycle and the ability to build a weapon if it was to leave the treaty.

The reason this is important is because even if Europe is willing to skip over that fact, Russia and China will not be. It is commonly said that Russia and China do not want to pass a resolution imposing new obligations on Iran because of their commercial interests.  The real reason is that Russia and China do not want new resolutions to come out of nowhere that go against their interests.  This is an issue of whether or not there are rules at all.

Another reason this is important is because the US and EU flagrantly flout their NPT obligations to withhold cooperation from non NPT states in the case of Israel but is attempting to change the rules mid-game on Iran.

So basically, you can let the idea of a security council resolution that is anything more than symbolic just leave your head.  It is not an option.  As concerned and alarmed as the US and EU are, the security council will not punish Iran for failing to go beyond the rules of the NPT. 

So what's left is either military strikes or sanctions.

Sanctions first:  The US already shot its bullet.  The EU could impose sanctions outside of the UNSC.  Iran would pay more to get goods from Dubai and other places.  Iran seems to be willing to do this.  Iran will make noises in this case and the price of oil will go up enough to leave Iran well compensated for the sanctions.

Military strikes second:  The US and Israel can do this.  They cannot get a regime change.  Of course the people of Iran will rally behind their leaders.  Without regime change Iran can stay in the NPT if it wants or maybe Russia, China or Pakistan will agree to help Iran's program if Iran leaves the NPT or maybe one will sell Iran a weapon in the new security environment.  Overall bombing Iran may or may not push back the day that Iran has a working weapon.  If Iran is really five or more years away now, bombing Iran may cause Iran to get a weapon sooner than not bombing Iran.

After the US bombs Iran, Iran will not invade Iraq or Afghanistan but the insurgents will sure get better weapons.  And the US is certainly not ready to invade or try to occupy Iran.

So while I feel your pain and understand your concern the choices are get Europe to impose sanctions, attack Iran or do nothing.  Spell out which option you prefer and we can talk about it.

If the US is lucky and the regime in Tehran is about to tumble any minute now then doing nothing is by far the preferable choice.  If not, it still might be the preferable choice. 

JMACSF,

Thanks; makes the point that the "strategy for victory" Bush is touting may produce victory -- but for Sadr not us or anyone close to a moderate/ally/"democrat".

Bruce Jentleson

First of all ME is not nuclear free anymore with Israel having nuclear weapons. I kinda agree with Dr. Ahmadinejad that the west should change its policy in regards to palestinians and they should not be ignored they way they are. I mean how bad your life should be that suicide is the only way out for you. 

"It may be that a nuclear Iran would be just the spur that is needed to force leaders inside and outside the Middle East region to get serious about creating such a nuclear-free zone.  Certainly, there is little else that would get Israel to the table."

If by "a nuclear Iran" you mean Iran's possessing a nuclear weapon I should think that taking preemptive action to avert such an outcome would likely be a better spur. I'm even willing to go so far to say that taking out a weapons-making operation with a nuclear weapon might be just the ticket. The idea of any nation possessing any nuclear weapons is an idea whose time has come to go. While I'm not promoting the use of a nuclear weapon for any purpose, I couldn't think of a better use for one. The entire constellation of rationalizations and what ifs that gravitates to so-called nuclear policy is nothing but a chimera.