THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR THREAT
Barack Obama’s Iran policies will lead to a nuclear-armed Iran and a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East.
Let us be clear. What Iran wants is a nuclear bomb. There is nothing which diplomacy can offer which they would rather have. As long as they do not believe that we will strike them or impose unbearable sanctions against them they will never agree to cease uranium enrichment. Iran does not believe that the Obama Administration will attack them or that it would or even can impose really harmful sanctions – and they are right.
President Obama has subordinated the interests of the United States and of our staunch friend and ally Israel to his own re-election, which he fears would be threatened if an Iranian crisis arises which forces him to take hard decisions before November 6th. And so he presses for further negotiations even though years of past negotiations have failed to budge Tehran one inch from its atomic weapons policy and even though Iran is also developing a ballistic missile delivery system for nuclear warheads in parallel with its nuclear bomb effort.
From Iran’s perspective what they need is time. They welcome negotiations as a means of delaying really effective action against them until they are actually able to develop and test a nuclear bomb. Once they have done this, they are convinced that the rest of the world will bluster but eventually accept them as a member of the nuclear club. Again, they are probably right.
And so Iran’s and Obama’s short term policies and political needs mesh perfectly. Each, in their own interest, wants to delay any significant decisions.
So what would happen if Iran does get the bomb?
First the very existence of our most loyal and helpful Middle East ally, Israel, would be threatened. Israel is geographically tiny and a nuclear detonation on their territory would devastate the entire nation. Given the Israeli nuclear weapons capacity I do not believe that Iran would attack them directly. It is more likely that Iran would make one or more nuclear weapons available to terrorist networks which it controls for use against the Jewish state (and perhaps against the United States as well).
Obviously Israel cannot take the chance that any of this could happen. A pre-emptive strike by Israel against Iran’s nuclear weapons capacity is Israel’s only realistic option. Should they fail to do so they and their country will forever after live in constant fear of nuclear annihilation at any moment.
Second, with the possible exception of Syria, the other nations of the Middle East also fear a nuclear-armed Iran, knowing as they do that, historically, a powerful Iran has always been an aggressive Iran.
Quietly most of the region’s governments are urging us to do whatever it takes to keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, even though they would be forced by their own public opinion to be critical of whatever action we might take. Since they too doubt that the United States will act effectively against Iran, they are certainly hedging their bets.
I cannot prove this but, based on decades of service in the region, I am convinced that many, perhaps all, of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Egypt, Turkey and probably others have put out feelers to countries like Pakistan and North Korea seeking to acquire either nuclear weapons technology or, in the short term, completed nuclear bombs. They have probably also approached Washington asking that we place them under the American nuclear umbrella should Iran acquire the bomb.
Thus an Iranian atom bomb would produce either a massive nuclear arms race in the most volatile area of the world or it would lead the United States to extend its nuclear security guarantees into that same dangerous region or both. More likely, it could lead Washington to put the problem into “the too hard box”, wringing our hands and letting events take their course.
Yet more than 20% of the world’s crude oil production passes out of the Persian Gulf. More volatility in an area where peace has been maintained for a century and a half largely through the presence of British and later American fleets is that last thing our country should want.
In fact none of these courses serve our interest. The rational course would be to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons capacity in the first place, particularly as we do not have to carry all of the load ourselves.
But the Obama Administration has made it crystal clear that it will not do this.
Obama has reportedly begged Israeli PM Netanyahu not to attack Iran until after the American presidential elections, promising heavy bunker-busting bombs if he will agree.
Shortly thereafter the White House exposed a reputed Israeli agreement with Iran’s northern neighbor Azerbaijan to use Azeri bases for refueling and perhaps also rearming aircraft in the wake of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. This not only makes such an agreement far less likely to be implemented, increasing the military difficulty of the task before Israel, it also hangs Azerbaijan, our best strategic friend in the Caucasus, out to dry.
All this because Obama fears that he may not be re-elected (Please God – let it be so!).
If Obama’s policy is so wrong, what should be done? In a nutshell, preclude Iranian nuclear weapons development and change the regime in Tehran.
To achieve this we could:
• Let Israel strike Iran’s nuclear facilities and the large refinery at Khorramshahr, helping them where necessary. This would not eliminate the Iranian nuclear effort but it would delay it significantly, buying valuable time.
• Impose sanctions that really bite. In fairness the sanctions denying Iran access to the SWIFT international banking system do hurt. They especially damage Iranian companies which trade internationally and they create problems for Iranians who have used their positions to steal vast amounts of money from their country and hide it abroad. But they are not enough. Add to these a declared blockade – ideally with our western allies but unilaterally if necessary - against the Iranian coastline which prevents the import of weapons and especially refined petroleum products, though not of course food and medicines. Iran imports almost all of its refined product. With the refinery at Khorramshahr out of commission and with any product import pipelines destroyed, the Iranian economy will suffer a sharp and immediate decline.
• Develop extensive cooperation with groups inside and outside Iran which are dedicated to the overthrow and replacement of the Iranian regime. Give the Iranian people a credible alternative to the religious dictatorship which they have endured for decades.
This course would take time. During this period the Tehran regime would react. The events of April 18, 1988, showed that we need not fear Iranian naval activity in the Gulf. Increased Iranian terrorist activity is probable but that would be far less harmful than Iranian terrorism with nuclear weapons. The Russians and Chinese would be opposed but unless they tried to overtly break our blockade – which could not be accepted – they could only supply Iran via airlift and this could not offset the impact of the blockade.
This course would be costly and potentially dangerous. But less costly and less dangerous than living with a nuclear-armed Iran.
Frankly, I do not like this course but I can see no other way to deny Iran the capacity which we dare not let them have.
Yet I believe that an Iran with nuclear weapons is the most likely outcome. The Obama Administration will do nothing until after the election and, if he wins, will still in my opinion do nothing meaningful. Obama wants to weaken America and its allies, not strengthen them.
A Romney Administration may well consider options like these but I suspect he will conclude that he was elected due principally to economic and financial concerns, leaving a solution to the Iranian problem to a later date.
Sadly, we do not know how much time we have before the red mushroom rises in the Iranian Dasht-e-Kavir (their great central desert). But when that happens the game is over. If the next round of talks permits the Iranians to enrich uranium up to 5% which, from an engineering standpoint, is two-thirds of the way to the 90% enrichment needed for a bomb, Obama will have given away that much more of our Iranian nuclear safety net.
Those of us who grew up in the ‘50’s remember what it is like to live in fear of nuclear attack. If Obama and the Iranians have their way, we and our Israeli friends may have to re-learn those old lessons.
Stan Escudero
April 29, 2012