Perhaps a better headline for this post should have been: Is there anything to be done about Iran?
But since I am an inveterate warmonger and fire breathing neo-con – at least according to some of my more unbalanced critics – the idea that there actually is something to be done militarily about Iran appeals to my militaristic soul.
Unfortunately, warring with the Persians would not solve any of our problems in Iraq and would probably even make things worse in the Middle East. The thought of not only fighting an insurgency against Sunni Islamists, al-Qaeda terrorists, and unreconstructed Baathists but adding to the mix several tens of thousands of enraged Shias joining the revolt against our occupation would make any troop increase in Iraq a futile exercise. And like it or not, Iran is now a regional power in the Middle East – an inevitable outgrowth of their own growing aggressiveness over the past decade and not as a result of anything the US has done in Iraq – and an attack on Iran would have unforeseen and unintended consequences for the region.
Since I firmly believe this to be the case, allow me to let my softer, feminine side dominate this discussion. Who knows. Maybe they’ll let me join the “Glenn Greenwald Fan Club” or perhaps even invite me to a shindig sponsored by Code Pink.
In truth, we are in a bind when it comes to doing anything about Iran. I reject the notion that one course or another proposed so far would “solve” anything. “Diplomatic overtures” made to the insular, treacherous, and fanatical mullahs who currently are in control of Iran would only reveal our weakness and, in the end prove futile. This is because Iran has absolutely no reason to talk to us. When negotiating, it is usually a prerequisite that both sides could benefit by coming to some kind of agreement – unless you’re a liberal or a denizen of Foggy Bottom. Then negotiating simply for the sake of talking becomes a goal in and of itself.
In the case of negotiating with Iran, there is nothing the US can concede consistent with our national interest while the issues we want resolved with the mullahs – a halt to nuclear enrichment and their assistance in stabilizing Iraq – are both non starters with the regime. Those who advocate negotiations to resolve these matters are delusional dreamers. It is much more likely that any bi-lateral talks we undertake with Iran will end up in delay, stalemate, and total failure. Iran will build their bomb and come to dominate Iraq no matter how long we negotiate or what we give up in return for any vague promises of cooperation by the mullahs.
We can’t bomb them. We can’t talk to them. Can we contain them?
As unsatisfactorily a course of action it may appear to be on the surface, containment would seem to be the only viable option open to the United States consistent with our interests in the region. For this, we have history and tradition on our side – elements that for once can work for us in the Middle East instead of against us. The fact is, Arab states have a laundry list of grievances against the Iranians going back hundreds of years not to mention the fear of Shia nationalism that the mullahs have unleashed in Iraq, Lebanon, and among the Shia minorities in other Arab states. The major powers in the region – Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia – would welcome our assistance in trying to block Iranian ambitions to dominate the Middle East with their nuclear weapons and unsavory brand of Shia hegemony.
Would we have to arm those countries with nuclear weapons or allow them to develop their own nuclear program to counter the Iranian threat? Not necessarily. Extending America’s nuclear umbrella to include protecting our friends in the region from Iranian nuclear blackmail would be considered a radical escalation but, at the same time, better than the alternative of going to war. The question would be whether nations like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf States would welcome such a guarantee of their sovereignty. And at the moment, that would appear to be unlikely. Our slow, painful egress from Iraq is not instilling much confidence in our friends regarding American steadfastness or staying power.
More likely, we could work to upgrade the conventional militaries of our Arab friends. This will not sit well with the Israelis but they will probably acquiesce without too much grumbling. They should realize that our efforts to stymie the Iranians would benefit their strategic position as well. And most of the Arab states at risk would welcome our relaxing the stringent rules against exporting some of our more advanced weapons systems.
But of overarching importance would be to get the Europeans on board with any containment effort. It isn’t a question of sanctions although more stringent penalties meted out by the United Nations would be helpful. By having our NATO allies signing on to a policy of containment as they did during the cold war, the west would be presenting a united front to the Iranians. This would probably not convince them to halt enrichment or deter them from meddling in Lebanon or Iraq. But it would definitely affect their calculations if they attempted to interfere in other states where Shia minorities are growing increasingly restless – largely at Iranian instigation but also as a result of a rise in Shia pride and Shia nationalism.
This is an historical movement that has been rising since even before the Iranian revolution and many of the states affected, especially in the Gulf region, are already dealing with Shia aspirations in the political sphere in one way or another. Change comes slowly but change is coming. And the last thing countries like Yemen, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia need is Iran flagging the latent mistrust and feelings of oppression felt by Shias all across the Middle East.
I realize how unsatisfactory a policy containing the Iranian menace is seen by many of my friends on the right. But when the alternatives are unacceptable or would cause more problems than they solve, there are times when only bad choices present themselves and we must choose the least awful among them.
UPDATE
What about fomenting revolution in Iran?
This, unfortunately, is also a non starter at this point. As in Russia during the reign of communists, the Iranians have brutally suppressed and eliminated democratic organizations and individuals with the potential to lead them. Any effort to supplant the mullahs would take many long years of carefully laying the groundwork for democratic groups to gain any ground at all. With the stranglehold on elections the mullahs enjoy (they say who runs for office not to mention their practicing fraud, intimidation, and outright stealing of elections), any peaceful transformation of Iranian society is a long term project with an uncertain outcome.
How about funding an insurgency? I suppose if we want to support groups already fighting the regime like the MEK (Mujahedin-e Khalq), we could take them off the State Department list of terrorist organizations and give them money and arms. But the question is what kind of leaders would be thrown up by backing such groups? Our efforts in eastern Europe succeeded because we supported a democratic opposition that, in the end, was in favor of a peaceful transition of power. Needless to say, it worked beyond anyone’s expectation although it took a quarter of a century to bear fruit.
I don’t think it would take that long in Iran but I do believe it will happen as a result of a combination of forces – death of the old guard, rise of material expectations that the mullahs can’t meet, and an opening of Iran to new ideas – all of which could take a decade or more.
By all means we should be supporting freedom in Iran. But to expect results anytime soon is unrealistic.
9:40 am
Pretty good article. The ‘nuke Tehran’ crowd will take you to task but I believe you’ve explored the consequences of attacking them.
11:10 am
I don’t believe that we are likely to get sufficient International cooperation to enact a sanctions regime sufficiently strong enough to persuade Iran that it would be in its own self-interest to abandon their enrichment program. I also believe that attacking their nuclear facilities carries more downside risk than upside. I do believe the reports I read that there is broad support among the Iranian middle class for regime change and rapprochement with the west and the US. Even limiting an attack to conventional weapons will result in sufficient collateral damage that it will have the effect of strengthening the Iranian regime and turning the general population against us.
Iran has to vulnerabilities that we can exploit to bring their nuclear program to an end and perhaps the downfall of the mullahs. I have read various estimates for the percentage of GDP that Iran gets through export of crude from 60% to 80% and that they are required to import somewhere between 20% and 40% of their refined products from abroad. I think that an approach similar to but greatly expanded from our response to the Iranian attacks on oil tankers in 1987 can be used to achieve or strategic goal visa via Iran.
By using the military resources we currently have staged in that area; two Aircraft Battle Groups, 4 minesweepers, two Marine Amphibious Assault Groups and what we are currently sending that way we could take over Iran’s offshore oil production platforms and offshore terminals. This could be accomplished with minimal collateral damage to civilian population and infrastructure.
This will provoke a considerable retaliatory response from Iran but that is probably manageable. They would obviously try to shut down the Gulf and the Straights of Hormus with both their naval and shore battery assets. I don’t foresee a problem with handling the navel ones in short order, while the shore launched cruse missiles would present somewhat of a greater challenge but given sufficient time these to would be suppressed.
I believe that at some point the Iranians would decide to challenge the oil assets of the neighboring Gulf states and hopefully the Patriot Missile Batteries currently in theater and on they way would work somewhat better than they did during Gulf War I and would prevent significant damage to those facilities.
Once in control of both the oil platforms and terminals and with the Gulf and Straights relatively protected so that the flow of oil from the other Gulf States could resume we should resume exporting Iranian Oil from the platforms we control with all proceeds flowing to a Trust for the Iranian people along the lines of the Alaska Oil fund to be distributed at such time as the reprocessing was halted and support for terrorism could verifiably be proven. If this were done I believe that that we would mitigate the ill will of the Iranian populace generated by the initial military action.
11:12 am
Web Reconnaissance for 01/31/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
2:04 pm
Rick,
Interesting post, as always. It seems to me that containment is the default policy that carries the fewest foreseeable downsides. Of the three obvious choices, it is the least unpalatable.
I think your comparison to Eastern Europe is particularly interesting, though obviously there are significant differences between the Cold War environment and our relationship with Iran.
I’ve actually been doing quite a bit of reading on coercion and influence theory of late and recently ran across this Rand report: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG184/index.html
Although geared toward terrorism, it has some applicability to influence campaigns in general. One of the case studies the report discusses is our support to the Polish Underground during the Cold War. A quote:
It’s difficult to see how the US could coordinate something similar inside Iran without an official presence (like an embassy) though. Still, influence and coercion theory can provide some ideas and methods to exploit Iran’s political, economic and social weaknesses. Sadly, the Bush Administration’s policy toward Iran has been pretty one-dimensional with the exception of the EU-3. It should be obvious that simple threats will not cause policy changes inside Iran.
4:08 pm
“By using the military resources we currently have staged in that area; two Aircraft Battle Groups, 4 minesweepers, two Marine Amphibious Assault Groups and what we are currently sending that way we could take over Iran’s offshore oil production platforms and offshore terminals. This could be accomplished with minimal collateral damage to civilian population and infrastructure.”
There is the teensy point to be made that this would be blatant aggressive warfare and occupation no better than Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait, and of course it would put the seal once and for all on America’s ability to project “soft” power.
Also the minor point that you’d be facing a constant fourth generation war while you held the bases.
“If this were done I believe that that we would mitigate the ill will of the Iranian populace generated by the initial military action.”
You dream I am afraid. The Iranians would think of this just as you would think of an Iranian government force taking most of Texas and promising to share the proceeds on the provision that you accept Sharia law in the US.
5:17 pm
Just to add to what Drongo said, 90% or so of Iran’s oil exports are shipped from the Kharq Island oil terminal in the northern Persian Gulf. That could easily be destroyed, but such an act would be an open act of warfare and lead to a cascade of escalation and bloody conflict.
Put yourself in Iran’s shoes – if a country came along and destroyed our capacity to produce a large portion of our GDP, then you can bet your ass we’d be goin to war. You can bet that doing the same to Iran would have the opposite of the intended effect on the Iranian people. They’d be pissed at the US and justifiably so as such an attack would significantly affect their basic economic livelihood.
10:35 am
It would be very helpful to your readers if you would read Arthur Herman’s essay on Iran in Commentary (Nov., 2006) ande comment on it.
7:58 pm
Rick, aren’t the truly unpredictable actors in a confrontation with Iran scenario, not just the mullahs, but even more so, China and Putin’s Russia? Both countries have recently shown that they’ll do what’s strictly in their own national interests even if it involves rattling sabers, i.e. China shooting down that satellite. We moved against Iran or their oil producing capacity, I’m guessing that the Chinese and Russians would work to undermine any efforts more than the Europeans ever would.
1:11 am
Submitted for Your Approval
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
10:22 am
[...] Right Wing Nut House, “What Do We Do About Iran?†[...]
12:25 am
The Council Has Spoken!
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Who Is George Soros? by American F…
11:14 pm
Mr. Moran, I never understand why the solutions always have to be ‘all or nothing’. The thought is that we have to engage solely in negotiations, or solely in an all-out military attack, or all out in supporting subversives within Iran.
These all-or-nothing approaches seem to be predicated on the idea that “we musn’t piss them off!” Even though they piss us off every day.
Iran is not engaged in an all-out attack against our forces in Iraq. They nibble and strike, nibble and strike. We can do the same. I know the Senate is trying to refuse us the option of very limited strikes JUST across the border into Iran. But I think we need to introduce uncertainty into their nefarious deliberations. We need to break our own rules a little bit. They should not be able to predict us. A little uncertainty could be a great thing.
11:29 pm
Watcher’s Council Results
The winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Who Is George Soros? by American Future, and Media Mischaracterizes Senate Resolution Vote by The QandO Blog. Here is a link to full results of the vote. Here…
8:48 am
Watcher’s Council results
And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Who Is George Soros? by American Future, and Media Mischaracterizes Senate Resolution Vote by The QandO Blog. All members, please be sure to link to both…