It is time to clarify the debate over Iran and its nuclear program. It's easy to criticize the current course adopted by the United States and its allies, to huff and puff about Iranian mendacity, to point out that Russia and China won't agree to tougher measures against Tehran, and to detail the leaks in the sanctions already in place. But what, then, should the United States do? The critics are eager to denounce the administration from the sidelines for being weak but rarely detail what they would do to be "tough." Would they attack Iran today? If not, then what should we do? It is time to put up or shut up on Iran.
There are three basic options that the United States and its allies have regarding Iran's nuclear program. We can bomb Iran, engage it diplomatically, or contain and deter the threat it poses. Let me outline what each would entail and then explain why I favor containment and deterrence.
Iran's nuclear ambitions are a problem. Nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is a danger, and the Iranian regime's foreign policy"”which has involved support for militias and terrorist groups"”make it a destabilizing force in the region. The country has a right to civilian nuclear energy, as do all nations. But Tehran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA says Iran has exhibited a pattern of deception and non-cooperation involving its nuclear program for 20 years"”including lying about its activities and concealing sites. In that context, it makes sense to be suspicious of Iran's intentions and to ask that the IAEA routinely verify and inspect its facilities. Unless that can be achieved, Iran should pay the price for its actions. Washington's current strategy is to muster international support to impose greater costs, while at the same time negotiating with Iran to find a solution that gives the world greater assurance that the Iranian program is purely civilian in nature.
It is an unsatisfying, frustrating approach. The Russians and Chinese want to trade with Iran and will not impose crippling sanctions. (Nor would India or Brazil, nor most other major developing countries.) Even if there were some resolution, it would depend on inspections in Iran, and the Iranians could probably hide things from the inspectors and cheat. They do occasionally make concessions, including significant ones last week"”to open the newly revealed Qum facility to inspectors and to send uranium to Russia for enrichment (which Tehran announced just as columnists were declaring that negotiations were sure to lead to nothing). But there will be setbacks as well. The cat-and-mouse game will continue.
One way to get instant gratification would be military force. The United States or Israel could attack Iran from the air. To be effective, such an attack would have to be large-scale and sustained, probably involving dozens and dozens of sorties over several days. The campaign would need to strike at all known Iranian facilities as well as suspected ones. Such an attack would probably not get at everything. Iran's sites are buried in mountains, and there are surely some facilities that we do not know about. But it would deal a massive blow to the Iranian nuclear program.
The first thing that would happen the day after such an offensive begins would be a massive outpouring of support for the Iranian regime. This happens routinely when a country is attacked by foreign forces, no matter how unpopular the government. Germany invaded Russia at the height of Stalin's worst repression"”and the country rallied behind Stalin. The Iranian regime itself was in deep trouble in 1980, facing internal dissension and mass dissatisfaction, when Saddam Hussein attacked, throwing a lifeline to the mullahs. Recall that George W. Bush's approval rating on Sept. 10, 2001, was about 40 percent. After 9/11, it quickly climbed to 93 percent. The -Iranian dissident Ali Akbar Mousavi Khoeini said to me, "If there were an attack, all of us would have to come out the next day and support the government. It would be the worst scenario for the opposition." Last week opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi warned that tightening sanctions would hurt ordinary people and turn them against the United States, not the regime.
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Separate multiple addresses with commas
NEWSWEEK's exclusive ranking
New research on why women have sex.
How a trip to Ethiopia changed the star.
Atheist Richard Dawkins is angry that more Americans don't believe in evolution.
Winky Wright.You are a Low Life.Move to Eastern Europe, where you'd Feel right at home.I bet you want a Jihad against Negroes, blacks or Afro Americans.I bet you Bow to Limbaugh, Hannity,Praeger, Savage, Beck, Hitler, Stalin, David Duke, James William Fulbright, Marx and Moussolini their all cut from the same Cloth.Soon Hispanics or Latinos will be the Most Populus Race in America, what will Low Life's like You do then..Hmmm
Facts below...The AIPAC crowd is going to have a hard time with this. Israel's uber-hawk Defense Minister (and the most highly decorated soldier in its history), Ehud Barak, says that an Iranian nuclear weapon would not pose an existential threat to Israel.Today's New York Times reports that Barak told Israel's largest paper Yedioth Ahronoth that..."Iran does not constitute an existential threat against Israel."Asked specifically about a Nuclear Armed Iran, Barak said,"I am not among those who believe Iran is an Existential issue for Israel."Barak concluded: "Israel is strong, I don't see anyone who could pose an existential threat,"The threat, of course, is not to Israel's existence but to Israel's status as the region's only superpower, able to do whatever it wants whenever it wants to.But don't expect this to mean that the "Bomb Iran" crowd here -- which is the lobby and its cutouts -- is going to shut up.Contrary to what many believe, the lobby does not always follow the Israel line.__________________Wikipedia:Israel's Nuclear Weapons ArsenalIsrael has Illegally Obtained Nuclear Weapons: Although no official statistics exist, it has been estimated that Israel possesses between [60 to 400] thermonuclear weapons, believed to be of Teller-Ulam design, with all strategic warheads in the megaton-range.The Israeli government maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity on whether it has nuclear weapons, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East"The International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei regards Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons__________
The country does not yet have even one nuclear weapon, and if and when it gets one???something that is far from certain???the world will not end. The Middle East has been home to nuclear weapons for decades . . . Deterrence worked with madmen like Mao, and with thugs like Stalin, and it will work with the calculating autocrats of Tehran. -------------These are inane conclusions, filled with wishful thinking more than anything else. In fact, an Iranian bomb could set off an arms race in this region and Zakaria is hoping for the best. And the comparison with Mao's China with regard to deterrence is a tremendous leap of faith. Iran, unlike China, has not repeatedly called for the obliteration of another county. Armed with nuclear weapons, one can only imagine Iran escalating its rhetoric. Miscalculation in this environment could be hair trigger.
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
Customize The Take with your favorite NEWSWEEK columnists
Read Full Article »