Sunday, February 13, 2005
The question nobody will ask: Is Iran deterrable?
Bellaigue does, however, provide a very useful overview of the negotiations between Iran on the one hand and Germany, France and the United Kingdom on the other hand. The Europeans have been trying to get Iran to give up its pursuit of the nuclear fuel cycle, which will bring it critically close to the bomb. They are failing, in part because the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty explicitly permits its signatories to develop the fuel cycle as long as they agree to monitoring inspections, and in part because only the United States can give Iran the guarantees that would make Iran secure enough to give up its ambitions for a bomb. Bellaigue at last decides that the onus is on the United States:
What is needed to deal with Iran and its nuclear ambitions is the formation of an international coalition including the US, and that is not George Bush's strong point.
Well, at least we know where Bellaigue is coming from.
Bellaigue, like most of the internationalist types who write in The New York Review, is very committed to the law. For Bellaigue, it is important to Iran's position that the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty permits the development of the fuel cycle:
Pollack...conflates Iran's ambiguity about its strategic nuclear ambitions -- in other words, to remain within the NPT, while protecting its ability to make nuclear weapons on short notice should it want to -- with the actual production of the weapons themselves. (Pollack observes that the two amount to the same thing in strategic terms; in legal terms, of course, they are worlds apart.)
Of course, when chips are really down it is strategic terms that matters. All the legal terms in the world will not prevent Tehran from detonating a bomb over Tel Aviv, if it were so inclined. And it may be. Rafsanjani:
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.
For all of Bellaigue's concern for law and process, he fails even to ask the two questions about Iran's nuclear program that hover over all serious discussion of the issue. First, what does an oil soaked, gas exporting, sun-drenched country need with civilian nuclear power? Whatever the law, there is no defensible reason for Iran to develop nuclear power capacity. Iran's only motive is to develop a weapon. Who are we kidding? Why does Bellaigue not even acknowledge the question? Because it would reveal quite starkly that reverance for the law has limits when nuclear weapons are in play.
Second, would an Iran with nuclear weapons -- or the ability to build them on short notice -- be deterrable? Those of us who supported the forcible removal of Saddam and his sons did so because we believed that his history of irrational decisions in matters of war and brinksmanship made him undeterrable. Conversely, we are not worried that France, Britain, India or even China have nuclear weapons, because we believe that their governments are inherently conservative in the preservationist sense and that makes them very deterrable. So, are the mullahs of Tehran preservationist enough to be deterrable? Or not? Rafsanjani certainly does not give us reason for confidence.
So how should we deal with Iran? The military options are extremely unpalatable. But is there a basis for a big trade? Thomas P.M. Barnett thinks so($):
Look at it from [the mullahs'] perspective, Mr. President. Those scary neocons just topped regimes to Iran's right (Afghanistan) and left (Iraq), and our military pulled off both takedowns with ease. Moreover, your administration has demonstrated beyond all doubt that you don't fear leaving behind a god-awful mess in your war machine's wake. Frankly, you're as scary as Nixon was in his spookiest White House moments on Vietnam. All I'm saying is now's the time to cash in on that reputation with Iran.
And don't tell me that we can't do that rapprochement thing with a hostile regime that supports international terrorism. If we could do it with the Evil Empire back in 1973, we can do it with the Axis of Evil's number two today.
Our offer should be both simple and bold. I would send James Baker, our last good secretary of state, to Tehran as your special envoy with the following message: "We know you're getting the bomb, and we know there isn't much we can do about it right now unless we're willing to go up-tempo right up the gut. But frankly, there's other fish we want to fry, so here's the deal: You can have the bomb, and we'll take you off the Axis of Evil list, plus we'll re-establish diplomatic ties and open up trade. But in exchange, not only will you bail us out on Iraq first and foremost by ending your support of the insurgency, you'll also cut off your sponsorship of Hezbollah and other anti-Israeli terrorist groups, help us bully Syria out of Lebanon, finally recognize Israel, and join us in guaranteeing the deal on a permanent Palestinian state. You want to be recognized as the regional player of note. We're prepared to do that. But that's the price tag. Pay it now or get ready to rumble."
There are a number of low-grade problems with this idea, including particularly that very little of it is verifiable. How do we know that Iran will cut off aid to anti-Israeli terrorists and the insurgency in Iraq? Why wouldn't the mullahs just take our deal, build their bomb, and keep doing what they're doing? If the military options are so unpalatable, what does "get ready to rumble" imply?
But the real problem is that Barnett also fails to ask and answer the critical question: Is Iran deterrable? If there is a substantial risk that it isn't because it makes decisions without regard to the potential for casualties or on account of moods of Allah, then we simply cannot let Iran have the bomb. By dodging this question, or assuming it away, Barnett (generally a smart guy) makes the same mistake Bellaigue does. Any serious discussion of America's Iran policy must explain why a nuclear-armed Iran would, or would not be, deterrable.
UPDATE: (Sunday, 9:30 a.m.) The news Sunday morning brings more of the same. Iran has made it clear that it will not give up construction of its heavy water reactor, saying that it wants to build a business exporting nuclear fuel.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi also said Iran plans to become a major nuclear fuel supplier in 15 years, part of a program that Iran says is for peaceful domestic energy purposes.
"We intend to turn into an important and a major player in the nuclear fuel supply market in the next 15 years because there will be (an) energy shortage in the future," Asefi said.
Associated Press correspondant Ali Akbar Dareini does not see fit to add that Iranian claims that it needs civilian nuclear power are -- shall we say -- not believed by anybody with two brain cells to rub together. He also does not suggest that anybody in the West might be alarmed by the prospect of Iran making a business out of the export of nuclear fuel. Can anybody suggest a better cover project for the exporting of nuclear weapons technology?
UPDATE: (Sunday, 11:45 a.m.) Tom Friedman makes a point in today's column that I was going to make (no, really) in my original post but forgot.
The Wall Street Journal ran a very, very alarming article from Iran on its front page last Tuesday. The article explained how the mullahs in Tehran - who are now swimming in cash thanks to soaring oil prices - rather than begging foreign investors to come into Iran, are now shunning some of them....
The Journal quoted Ali Ansari, an Iran specialist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, as saying that for 10 years analysts had been writing about Iran's need for economic reform. "In actual fact, the scenario is worse now," said Mr. Ansari. "They have all this money with the high oil price, and they don't need to do anything about reforming the economy." Indeed, The Journal added, the conservative mullahs are feeling even more emboldened to argue that with high oil prices, Iran doesn't need Western investment capital and should feel "free to pursue its nuclear power program without interference."
Friedman then goes on to make the asinine point that the solution to all of this is for the Bush Administration to launch a huge program to reduce our reliance on petroleum, which would reduce the leverage of the mullahs. I'll get back to that in a bit.
Friedman's basic point -- that economic "carrots" are not a powerful reason for Iran to give up pursuit of the Bomb -- is an important one because it reinforces the idea that there is very little the Europeans can offer Iran to motivate it to change its ways. It would be far more constructive for the major European powers to threaten sanctions, not just with regard to investment but also exports. If the increasingly consumerist Iran is cut off from its supply of Western goods, the relatively passive population might shake off its quiescence. Of course, if China and Japan didn't play along the Iranians would only look east for their perfume, televisions, computers and automobiles. No matter. If the Europeans were unwilling to cut off their dealings with Saddam's Iraq, a much smaller country, in the interests of containment, what hope do we have that they would make a much greater sacrifice to coerce Iran? Neither investment carrots nor sanction sticks are likely to work, the first because Iran does not care, and the second because the major trading powers of the world lack the will.
Now, why is Friedman's proposal -- that the Bush Administration undercut the leverage of the mullahs with a comprehensive alternative energy program -- asinine? Because no such program can be enacted quickly enough to make a difference in our dealings with Iran. I actually agree that the United States consumes vastly more petroleum than is necessary, and that in doing so we line the pockets of our enemies. We need to substitute other sources of energy for petroleum, and we need to get more output from the petroleum that we do use. Since we need to do this, better that Bush get it done than wait for an administration that does not have the expertise to come along and muck it up. Until we do so, we will indeed be financing "both sides" in the war we are fighting. But nothing we do in the way of energy policy will increase our leverage over Iran in the small number of years it will take Iran to master the fuel cycle.
UPDATE: (Monday, noon) Solomon reports that Kenneth Pollack wondered aloud, in public, whether Europe "has the balls" to stand up to Iran. Begging the question, of course: what does standing up mean, in this case?
17 Comments:
By 
TigerHawk, at
Sat Feb 12, 11:59:00 PM:
The question is, what do we do? If you don't believe Iran is deterrable in its current form, and you don't think that the military options are very plausible (I don't), how do you move them along? I have a few thoughts on the subject, but they may be very naive. Perhaps later in the week...
By 
, at
Sun Feb 13, 12:15:00 AM:
Hey guess what...
Iran has just as much right to nuclear weapons as the USA
Besides, America has not the troops, the money, the credibility or the support for war or even a bombing campaign against Iran. The coalition of the willing is MIA. Not even the British will go along with military action against Iran.
A nuclear Iran is just something the arrogant US government is just going to have to swallow.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Feb 13, 12:34:00 AM:
There is no "right" to control over nuclear weapons. The only question is whether the world has the will to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of actors that have not demonstrated that they can be handled responsibly. I agree that military action, short of preemptive nuclear strike, is unlikely to prevent Tehran from getting nuclear weapons. But the possession of nuclear weapons by the government in Tehran will make it essential that that government be changed. Nuclear weapons are, in that sense, a burden as much as an advantage. Many countries of the world have understood this, including Ukraine, South Africa and, most recently, Libya. The United States and Europe may yet persuade Iran that the costs of becoming a nuclear power far outweigh its advantages.
By , at
Sun Feb 13, 01:01:00 AM:
Iran absolutely has the right to develop nuclear weapons.
It's called sovereignty.
On the other hand, the US and Europe have no right to dictate to Iran what weapons they can't have.
The situation with Iran is the logical result of the shortsighted Bush preemptive war doctrine - the best way to preempt a preemptive strike is to get nukes.
I'm sure the Iranian government knows they have plenty of advantages over the Bush administration right now.
By , at
Sun Feb 13, 01:17:00 AM:
Well put-I wish I had more hope about how that is going to work out. Oh well, I'm sure the Euros will fix it.
By Sluggo, at
Sun Feb 13, 03:40:00 AM:
If the mullahs aren't deterred by recent developments to their west, then they aren't deterrable. In fact, if Iraq continues to make progress toward some ongoing version of democracy, they will be spurred on towards their goal. They're in the same race against time as we are. Will the democratic elements in Iran that have been giving them fits develop into a viable force (and/or pull down the state) before the mullahs get the big stick? I'm certain our diplomatic and intelligence services are working on this, but I hope they have a good Plan B.
By Cardinalpark, at
Sun Feb 13, 09:04:00 AM:
Iran's current regime cannot be deterred. They espouse a radical fascist islamist ideology, though shiite, which pits them against all non believers. Like the Soviets, their tyrannical regime creates external enemies to justify its existence and quell internal dissension. Unlike them, however, they have a view of martyrdom which makes them irrational -- a willingness to sacrifice huge numbers to kill great numbers.
Iran certainly is sovereign and can do what they please. However we and their neighbors aren't required to accept it and take the risk. No concept of international law developed by a majority of non-elected tyrants should restrain the US from acting in its moral and strategic interest in the region.
It is hilarious to me and reflects complete historical cluelessness and bias when these expert writers ignore what regional ARABS feel about the PERSIAN SHIITE acquisition of a bomb and focus only on the US and Israel. At least the US and Israel can take on Iran. The others are powerless. It reflects the innate bias of the writer to bitch about Israel and the US without any consideration for the fact that the local Arabs and Turks have a joint interest with us in preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
The historical antipathy between the majority Sunni Arabs and Shiite Persians is impressive and far deeper than any animus with Israel and the US. In fact, both Israel and the US are natural historical allies of Iran -- its historical enemies have been the Russians (always looking for access to the Gulf) and the Arabs. The Iranians lost a million men in a war against the Sunnis not 20 years ago.
So "Iran" per se isn't the problem. It's the mullahs who can't be deterred, and they have got to go, period. They are dangerous to Israel, their Sunni Arab neighbors and the US. They are a radical menace. Whatever we can do to change regimes in Iran, we should do, or tears will flow later. When they are gone, Iran will rapidly become a natural US ally again, and a balancing force against the local Arabs.
By , at
Sun Feb 13, 10:42:00 AM:
The US most definitely will have to accept an Iran with nuclear weapons because the US has no way to stop it.
There will be no coalition of the willing this time and all the kissing up to "old Europe" won't get them behind another Bush military adventure. Even the British have made it clear that they don't support any military action against Iran.
That so-called intelligence failure over Iraq's WMD will come back to bite the Bush administration if they claim they have intelligence proving Iran is working on nuclear weapons. Who will believe them? Hardly anyone outside Bush's most loyal supporters.
All the pro-war crowd has to work with over Iran right now is bluster.
When Iran does go nuclear who will the right wing blame it on?
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Feb 13, 11:40:00 AM:
Last Anonymous Guy:
I agree that the military options in Iran are not, er, attractive. But however spent Bush's credibility may be with the Europeans, nobody believes that Iran isn't working on nuclear weapons. Iran is openly building a heavy-water reactor. It is a largely non-industrial economy with staggering oil reserves. It has no need for civilian nuclear power. None. Not for a hundred years. There is literally no doubt that it is working on developing the fuel cycle, which will give it the material it needs for a bomb. It isn't a matter of intelligence or Bush's credibility. There just is no alternative explanation for Iran's actions.
The question is, what is to be done about it?
By , at
Sun Feb 13, 12:42:00 PM:
What is to be done about Iran's nuclear programs?
Gee, how about we mind our own damn business for a change instead of acting like the global cop?
By Unknown, at
Sun Feb 13, 12:48:00 PM:
Rafsanjani has been expressing a similar calculus for some time. Part of the problem with the Barnett plan is that it ignores the unfortunate reality that not everyone is motivated by Realpolitik. Sometimes people believe and will do exactly what they say. And the mullahs have been saying that they plan to nuke Israel for religious reasons for quite a while now.
By geoffrobinson, at
Sun Feb 13, 05:45:00 PM:
I have felt for a long time that peaceniks by pushing Bush for peace actually made war inevitable. Saddam, for all of his lack of WMDs, sure as heck acted like he had them. The peacenik's response? Just be wimpy. Have no credible threat of force.
That will not work in Iran either. If you want peace, peaceniks (and I use that affectionately) press the bad guys for peace. The problem is with Iran. For all I care tell Iran "you better do what W. tells you, he's nuts." That would actually be helpful and may prevent war.
Giving Iran hope (i.e, the current peacenik plan) will increase the liklihood of conflict.
By TigerHawk, at
Sun Feb 13, 08:32:00 PM:
Princeton being Princeton, I saw a bumper sticker this afternoon with Einstein's famous quotation, "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." I think this is laughably wrong. Peace, in my view, requires preparation for war. But there are a great many people who cling to this idea that the cause of war is militarism. They are the world's appeasers.
By , at
Sun Feb 13, 09:00:00 PM:
You've got some powerful support on your side:
"If we desire to secure peace, it must be known that we are at all times ready for war."
George Washington, 1790
By Final Historian, at
Sun Feb 13, 10:04:00 PM:
Hey Jack, it looks like I missed most of the fun here. Here is an e-mail I wrote to Barnett earlier, explaining the Iran situation.
http://historysend.blogspot.com/2005/02/letter-to-barnett.html
By jj mollo, at
Wed Feb 16, 08:57:00 PM:
The last election was mostly about Bush's judgment in pursuing the war in Iraq. A significant number of centrists and liberals voted for him because of this. The result is that he essentially has carte blanche in pursuing the war as he sees fit. He may lose the British, but he will not lose any ground domestically. His likely course for impressing Iran will be to push Syria around in an embarrassing way. He is already well begun on this score.
I believe we have the military capability to do whatever is necessary with the Mullahs, and they believe it too. That was one of the side benefits of the tsunami aid efforts. It underscored our remarkable capacity. The biggest problem with a military approach is that the Iranian people are in the way.
By Judith, at
Wed Feb 16, 09:14:00 PM:
"Kenneth Pollack wondered aloud, in public, whether Europe "has the balls" to stand up to Iran. Begging the question, of course: what does standing up mean, in this case?"
I was the one who heard Pollack make this remark at a panel which you can read more about if you follow the link to my blog. The context was whether the US could count on Europe to back us up on confronting Iran, with sanctions or threat of military action. Or whether Europe would want to play the game they've played with Iraq: undermining us, financing terrorists, protecting their oil deals, etc.
Pollack thought that sanctions would work if the US and Europe presented a united front. Gerecht thought the mullahs' religious zeal would trump their economic good sense.
