Rattling Sabers at Tehran

          The latest report issued by the UN IAEA sent sabers rattling around the world. It is clear many believe that Iran is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. This piece examines if acquisition of nuclear weapons is indeed Iran’s goal and what might be the implications if such weapons were acquired.

          The IAEA report states: “The information indicates that Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device.” Let’s presume that the “relevant activities” are working toward building such a device. Let’s ask some questions…

What would Iran gain from possessing a nuclear device?

          Iran would be secure from attack and free to pursue regional mischief/ influence. They have kept their eyes open and noted that wingnut countries like North Korea, who proliferate nuclear secrets and have a few crude devices, are not touched. Regimes that play nice and give up nuclear aspirations, like Libya, have other outcomes.

          They also observe that if you build your facilities above ground, like Syria, they can be taken out from the air. Let’s state this plainly….It is impossible without a ground invasion to stop Iran’s nuclear program. Their hardened underground facilities are built in the heart of population centers and under important mosques. They have built multiple redundancies into their development process. A concerted bombing campaign would simply slow progress for a few years.

          It is unrealistic and probably quite unwise to assume that Western powers will lather, rinse and repeat whack-a-mole bombing raids into densely populated urban centers every two to three years. An attack should be approached with caution and deliberated with gravity. On the Iranian streets, the approval rating of the United States is the highest in the Middle East. An attack would instantly polarize the populace against us and send an army of embedded Iranian agents into action against Western targets. There would be no painless “precision strikes” here. An attack would revive a diminishing and politically bankrupt regime (imagine if the Taliban and the Kremlin had a baby). It would establish regional narratives for generations.

          What would Iran get from having a Bomb? Security from attack. Analysts suspect the Iranians have wanted security treaties for a few decades, but nobody is talking to Tehran.

          If bragging rights, “respect” and security are their psychological drivers, is it smart for them to build a Bomb? No, it would be smart for the world to know they could quickly build a Bomb. If they produced enough fissile material that they could politically leverage this belief, they could have their security without the Bomb toting baggage, as well as legally adhere to the non-proliferation treaty. The IAEA report does not contradict such a premise.

What if Iran built a Bomb? How would they use it?

          This seems a crucial question to ask before launching a first strike into a sovereign nation. Some saber-rattlers contend they would immediately bomb Israel. This is not likely as the Iranian people are not particularly anti-Semitic. Hating Israel is more an Arab/ Sunni type of thing. The average person on the street ignored Israel before the ascendance of their current colorful President, who bashed Israel to increase Iranian influence on Arab street corners.

          If they used a nuclear weapon, it would be national suicide. The Iranian regime may be homicidal, but it isn’t suicidal. Maybe they would give a nuke to terrorists? Not likely. They are traceable and there’s that whole national suicide thing.

          The major danger from an Iranian Bomb is not the use of the Bomb, but the regional destabilization and nuclear proliferation by Iran’s Arab neighbors. If you don’t want Iran to have a Bomb, you REALLY don’t want Arab countries, whose people ARE suicidal, to have one.

          So if Iran DID build a bomb, they would pretty much get what they want, security from attack. We might actually have to talk with them, like we did with other hostile nuclear powers such as China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union.

          Contrast the frenzy of an impending Iranian Bomb with actual Bombs residing in Pakistan. Pakistan is our “ally”? Pakistan and North Korea are the two rogue proliferators of nuclear technology. The Pakistani people have the lowest support (12%) for the United States of any nation. Intelligence reports indicate that the S Branch of the ISI train, arm, and support the most lethal enemies to United States interests in Southern Asia. The Pakistani military and intelligence field the Taliban while obstructing their civilian government.

          Pakistan is our enemy. Why do we not fear for their nukes? The country has always been run and is currently run by a professional military. The United States pays more than a quarter of the Pakistani military budget. The military has a firm but duplicitous hand on the nukes and we know it. So no worries.

          Obviously, relations with Pakistan are complex. Our thinking towards Iran and their changing factions and power bases should reflect such  complexity as well. We need a mindshift in terms of national security. We have spent the last decade fixating on Islamic terrorism. Lat week, former Speaker Gingrich objected those questioning the linkage between terrorism and Islam. He said that would be like talking about the Soviet Union without talking about Communism. In our cartoon soundbyte mindscapes, terrorism has become the faceless existential enemy. However, the asymmetric tactic of terrorism knows no religious or political affiliation. A recent EU intelligence analysis showed that out of the 245 terrorist attacks committed in the EU in 2010, only 3 were linked to Islamic fundamentalism.

          We’ve talked only once to Iran formally, after the Republican Guard attempted assassination of a Saudi diplomat. It is interesting to note that the Arabs, in particular the Saudis, are the chief advocates of an Iranian military strike. Coincidence?      

          So before we fuel the jets, we might actually want to talk with Iran. We can’t quell the source of our fear by lashing out at it. A preemptive strike based on speculation and sketchy intelligence without a clear and present danger keeps our enemies a mystery while speaking volumes about ourselves.