3/1/10

Yesterday, Brookings Institution scholars Michael O'Hanlon and Bruce Riedel published a powerful op-ed in the Financial Times opposing a military strike on Iran.  Their arguments against such a policy were based on a clear-headed analysis of the costs versus benefits of such an action.  In their view, not only would military action fail to eliminate Iran's nuclear program, but its mere mention lacks credibility.  The arguments against potential American military action are compelling.  First, an attack would not be able to physically stop the Iranian nuclear program from proceeding. Second, Iran has the asymmetric capacity to retaliate against American operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.  Third, the potential diplomatic fallout from our regional partners would greatly complicate U.S. diplomatic activities oriented around dealing with Iran.  In sum, the consequences to U.S. interests argue strongly against the military option.  

Unfortunately, a group of right-wing hawks and neoconservatives has chosen to ignore this message, instead throwing their full support behind the fantasy of a magic bullet military strike, one that destroys the danger with no downside.  We have seen this type of "all benefit, no cost" argument before, and it does not have a good track record.  , this group stands in stark contrast to a growing bi-partisan consensus of military and national security experts who have come in on the side of reality, warning against the military option.  This consensus further underscores conservatives' gaping credibility deficit when it comes to Iran.  The Obama administration would be wise to avoid the calls for military confrontation, and should instead continue to apply targeted pressure in support of diplomacy, with an eye towards the development of a long-term, internationally backed framework for dealing with the Iranian regime.

Historic hawks O' Hanlon and Riedel oppose a war posture towards Iran.  In a piece for the Financial Times yesterday, Brookings scholars Michael O' Hanlon and Bruce Riedel mounted a multi-pronged argument against a policy of military confrontation with Iran.  Explaining that the policy of a military strike is often thought of as a "last resort should diplomacy and economic sanctions fail to persuade Tehran to put its nuclear programme back under proper restrictions and inspections," O'Hanlon and Riedel nevertheless conclude that "as an option, however, it should not become a self-fulfilling prophecy." 

Military strike would not remove threat of Iranian nuclear weapon. "There is also a technical reality: even a massive strike would not slow Iran's progress towards a bomb for long. We cannot be sure we know where all existing Iranian facilities to enrich uranium are located - as the revelation of yet another previously unknown site near Qom last year reminded us. Even if we did strike most or all existing facilities, Iran can rebuild fairly fast and would surely expel inspectors and burrow further underground when building its next facilities. It would be even harder to find, and strike, those assets." [O'Hanlon & Riedel, 2/28/10]

Military strike "lacks credibility." "The strike option, however, lacks credibility. America is engaged in two massive and unpopular military campaigns in the region. Given Iran's ability to retaliate against the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is simply not credible that we would use force in the foreseeable future." [O'Hanlon & Riedel, 2/28/10]

Military option distracts from other priorities. "In addition, keeping the option of force requires US diplomats and military officials to take preparatory steps that may distract from our current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and complicate a number of regional bilateral alliances. Some states in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, are generally worried about Iran. But few are anxious to support moves towards war. We will be better positioned for a sustained tightening of regional alliances if we remain resolute yet fundamentally defensive in our orientation and strategy." [O'Hanlon & Riedel, 2/28/10]

According to O'Hanlon and Riedel, rather than embark on a course that would result in military confrontation, the U.S. should "develop a long-term strategy for dealing with a nuclear Iran and not box ourselves into war." [O'Hanlon & Riedel, 2/28/10]

Meanwhile, neoconservatives and conservative hawks advocate radical, counterproductive military action.  Right-wing hawks and neoconservatives have allied to stand outside this responsible consensus.  In a recent op-ed titled, "The Case for Striking Iran Grows," leading neoconservative John Bolton argued that "America's central focus must be to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons in the first place. Doing so requires decisive, and likely military, action now...."  Bolton is not alone in this view.  Jamie Fly, of the Foreign Policy Initiative, wrote in the Weekly Standard that, "The Obama administration only furthers this [Iran's breakout capacity] by stating that it has no intention of taking military action against Iran."  An Alan Kuperman piece in the New York Times was even more explicit: "We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better."  And, in a piece for the National Review, Daniel Pipes recommended that the President "bomb Iran" for political reasons, in order to "change the public perception of him as a light-weight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations."  

In September of last year, Elliot Cohen wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal advocating a military strike by the United States or Israel: "The choices are now what they ever were: an American or an Israeli strike, which would probably cause a substantial war, or living in a world with Iranian nuclear weapons, which may also result in war, perhaps nuclear, over a longer period of time."  [John Bolton, 2/11/10. Jamie Fly, Weekly Standard, 2/19/10. Alan Kuperman,  Daniel Pipes, 2/2/10. Alan Kuperman, 12/24/09.Elliot Cohen, 9/27/09]

Extreme conservatives clamor for war ignores bipartisan expert consensus against any military strike on Iran.  O'Hanlon and Riedel's op-ed highlights the growing number of military and national security experts who have cautioned against military action against Iran.

General David Petraeus, CENTCOM Commander: A military strike "could be used to play to nationalist tendencies...There is certainly a history, in other countries, of fairly autocratic regimes almost creating incidents that inflame nationalist sentiment. So that could be among the many different, second, third, or even fourth order effects (of a strike)." [Gen. David Petraeus, 2/03/10]

General Anthony Zinni, former head of CENTCOM and former Bush Administration envoy to the Middle East:  "the problem with the strike is thinking through the consequences of Iranian reaction.  One mine that hits a tanker, and you can imagine what is going to happen to the price of oil and economies around the world.  One missile into a Gulf oil field or a natural gas processing field, you can imagine what's going to happen.  A missile attack on some of our troop formations in the Gulf or our bases in Iraq, activating sleeper cells, flushing out fast patrol boats and dowels that have mines that can go into the water in the Red Sea and elsewhere. You can see all these reactions that are problematic in so many ways. Economic impact, national security impact -- it will drag us into a conflict.  I think anybody that believes that it would be a clean strike and it would be over and there would be no reaction is foolish." [Anthony Zinni,8/04/09]

Former Bush administration Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns: "Air strikes would undoubtedly lead Iran to hit back asymmetrically against us in Iraq, Afghanistan and the wider region, especially through its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. This reminds us of Churchill's maxim that, once a war starts, it is impossible to know how it will end." [Nicholas Burns, 5/06/09]

Fareed Zakaria: A military strike "would most likely delay the Iranian program by only a few years," and "The regime would gain support as ordinary Iranians rally around the flag. The opposition would be forced to support a government under attack from abroad."  Additionally, an attack would, result in the Iranian regime "foment[ing] and fund[ing] violence from Afghanistan to Iraq and across the Persian Gulf," severely damaging U.S. interests, with relatively low costs to the Iranians. [Fareed Zakaria, 2/21/10]

What We're Reading

With frantic rescue efforts under way, a rising death toll and isolated outbreaks of looting, the Chilean president issued an order that will send soldiers into the streets in the worst-affected areas to both keep order and speed the distribution of aid.

In a posthumously released video message, the suicide bomber who killed seven C.I.A. employees on Dec. 30 said that his original target had been his handler from Jordanian intelligence, and that an invitation to meet C.I.A.  officers at a remote base in Afghanistan had been an unexpected boon.

A Pakistani court has restrained the government from extraditing Afghan Taliban leaders recently detained by its intelligence services to any other country.

The electoral fate of nationalist Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki will be a harbinger of political progress in the war-torn country.

In his first statement since protest rallies planned for Feb. 11 largely fizzled, Iran's top opposition figure, Mir Hossein Mousavi, described the Tehran government Saturday as a "gang with no respect for Iran's interests."

As President Obama begins making final decisions on a broad new nuclear strategy for the United States, senior aides say he will permanently reduce America's arsenal by thousands of weapons.

Seif al-Islam el-Qaddafi, the son and heir apparent of Muammar el-Qaddafi, has broad plans for economic and political modernization of Libya, but it's unclear whether the plans are a vision of the future or simply wishful thinking.

Eleven people, at least three of them children, were killed in an attack in the Philippines believed to have been carried out by the militant group Abu Sayyaf in retaliation for the recent arrests and deaths of several of its members.

A plan led by Germany and France to bail out Greece with as much as €30 billion ($41 billion) in aid began to take shape amid intense and risky jockeying between Athens and Berlin over timing and terms.

President Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the Patriot Act.

Commentary

The NYT editorial board says the Obama administration's forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review is the president's chance to, "finally jettison cold war doctrine and bolster America's credibility as it presses to rein in Iran, North Korea and other proliferators."

Ad Melkert, head of the UN mission in Iraq, writes that success in Iraq depends on shifting international involvement from interference into engagement.

Niall Ferguson argues that empires are fragile things, and America should not assume decline is always gradual.