5 Questions for the 'Bomb Iran' Caucus
Even before the announcement of a successful nuclear "framework" deal last week between the United States, leading world powers, and Iran, the drums for war were beating. Advocates of a military strike argue that any deal will at best forestall Iran's progress and that only military force will thwart its attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. The problem is, even a large-scale, coordinated U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure is unlikely to effectively cripple the program, and such an attack is likely to energize Tehran's ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon as soon as possible. Thanks to the deal achieved in Lausanne last week, America should not have to make such a choice. But those who seek to scuttle and undermine the deal and continue to advocate for a military "solution" to the Iranian nuclear program should answer the following five questions and consider some relevant counterpoints.
1. What would the operation(s) really look like?
Most military and defense experts agree that limited air strikes are simply incapable of significantly degrading or destroying the Iranian nuclear program. For this exact reason it has been argued that even with its formidable capabilities, the Israeli Defense Force does not possess the capacity to successfully achieve this objective on its own. U.S. airpower would be required to effectively carry out the mission of crippling Iran's program. However, well-protected and deeply buried installations like Fordow present difficult targets even for advanced U.S. munitions, and critical components of the nuclear program are dispersed across the country. Given the nature of Iranian air defenses and the likely number of sorties required to execute a successful air campaign, there is significant probability of American and or Israeli casualties, and escalation seems highly likely.
2. What would Iran's reaction be?
This is obviously an important but difficult question to answer. However, if the regime perceives a threat to its survival, and doesn't necessarily accept the "limited" rationale of a U.S. or U.S.-Israeli attack, then it would be highly likely to retaliate in whichever ways are perceived to maximize the costs to the U.S. and its allies. From closing the Gulf of Hormuz to missile attacks against regional targets, to the use of irregular forces, there is little reason to expect Tehran to practice restraint.
Moreover, given the high value that the Iranian regime allegedly places on the acquisition of nuclear weapons, it seems incredible that any sort of U.S. or Israeli attack would dampen or decrease its desires. Rather if Iran is able to maintain any semblance of its nuclear program after a U.S. strike, it would seem almost certain that the regime would proceed at breakneck speed to achieve a weapon, sparing little expense. To argue otherwise seems to engage in unmitigated wishful thinking.
Finally, there is little reason to be optimistic that a U.S. attack would somehow precipitate regime change. Instead, a large-scale attack, particularly in wake of the diplomatic success at Lausanne, would likely ignite vehement anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiment and galvanize support for the regime. While Iran's leaders may indeed be "ideological" they are also intensely nationalist. It is not difficult to envision an overwhelming nationalistic response, popular expressions of "rallying around the flag," and the deployment of intense "us versus them" rhetoric and symbolism that leaves moderates and reformers with little political space for opposition, and little choice but to support the regime in a time of crisis.
more...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-w-kearn/5-questions-for-the-bomb-iran-caucus_b_7009540.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
