8/11/10

Over the last few weeks, American neoconservatives and war hawks have peppered the media with speculation about an Israeli military attack on Iran.   Yesterday, an article in The Atlantic gave added weight to this speculation by rating the likelihood of an Israeli strike in the next year at greater than 50 percent, based on more than 40 interviews with current and past Israeli officials.  But the factors that make up a powerful case against military action on Iran have not changed.  Nor has the clear, bipartisan apprehension among those who would have to fight such a war and live with its aftermath, from Israeli President Shimon Peres to Admiral Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The challenge before the administration is finding strategies that truly will make our allies in the Middle East feel more secure. Saber-rattling has been tried for eight years, with the only result that Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon and more influential in the region. The best way forward for dealing with Iran is to continue the smart, comprehensive strategy that has isolated and weakened the regime, while paying close attention to the security needs of our allies and heightening the pressure toward a diplomatic resolution.

Strategic consensus against a military strike on Iran has not changed.  A new article in The Atlantic by Jeffrey Goldberg finds that many Israelis believe that an Israeli military strike on Iran is more likely than previously thought.  The article dovetails with a concerted effort - particularly from neoconservatives - to advocate for an Israeli attack.  Yet this speculation and advocacy does nothing to change the powerful arguments against such an option. As Goldberg himself documented, many former Israeli military officials remain deeply apprehensive about a strike. Goldberg writes that, "In my conversations with former Israeli air-force generals and strategists, the prevalent tone was cautious. Many people I interviewed were ready, on condition of anonymity, to say why an attack on Iran's nuclear sites would be difficult for Israel." Goldberg also recounted a conversation with Israeli President Shimon Peres: "When I asked if he believed in a military option, he said, ‘Why should I declare something like that?' He indicated he was uncomfortable with the idea of unilateral Israeli action and suggested that Israel can afford to recognize its limitations..."

The concern expressed by these Israelis fits within the consensus from America's top military and national security leaders that argues against military strikes on Iran:

Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "I worry, on the other hand, about striking Iran. I've been very public about that because of the unintended consequences of that..." [Admiral Michael Mullen, 4/18/10]

General David Petraeus, former CENTCOM commander:  Warned that the military option risks unleashing a popular backlash that would play into the hands of the regime.  "There is certainly a history, in other countries, of fairly autocratic regimes almost creating incidents that inflame nationalist sentiment," said Petraeus. "So that could be among the many different, second, third, or even fourth order effects (of a strike),"  [David Petraeus, 2/3/10]

General Anthony Zinni, former CENTCOM commander: "The problem with the strike is thinking through the consequences of Iranian reaction...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]

Ambassador Nicholas Burns, former Bush administration Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs: "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]

Colin Kahl, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East: In an interview with Think Progress, Kahl warned that even though any military strike could delay Iran's nuclear program, it could also ‘incentivize the Iranians to go all the way to weaponize.' [Colin Kahl, via Think Progress, 10/1/09]

[The Atlantic, 8/11/10. Elliot Abrams, WSJ, 8/6/10. Reuel Marc Gerecht, Weekly Standard, 7/26/10]

Saber-rattling on Iran will not enhance the security of our allies in the Middle East. A common thread winding through these articles is that the U.S. should flex its muscles to intimidate Iran and shore up the position of America's allies in the Middle East.  In his article for the Atlantic, Goldberg described how the Israelis he interviewed "argue that Iran demands the urgent attention of the entire international community, and in particular the United States, with its unparalleled ability to project military force."  "Several Arab leaders have suggested that America's standing in the Middle East depends on its willingness to confront Iran," added Goldberg, later on in the article.

However, as New America's Amjad Atallah writes, "Arab governments seek a ‘balance of forces' in the region - not regional conflagration."

And if the previous administration's record is any indication, saber-rattling and emphatic statements about military force will not achieve that.   Eight years ago, the Bush administration made the decision to include Iran in the "Axis of Evil," and constantly mentioned that all options were "on the table" when it came to Iran. But during that time, Iran's influence across the Middle East grew, and Iran continued to expand its nuclear program under the nose of the International Atomic Energy Agency. By the end of the Bush administration, Iran had drawn closer to reaching nuclear "breakout" capability, operating thousands more centrifuges at its central enrichment plant in Natanz.  Iran's steady progress has led Mohammed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to call the last five years of efforts to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions a "failure."  In December of 2008, a Brookings report grimly summed up the result of the previous administration's bellicose approach: "Tehran now has acquired the means to influence all of the region's security dilemmas, and it appears unlikely that any of the Arab world's crises, from the persistent instability in Iraq and Lebanon to security of the Persian Gulf, can be resolved without Iran's acquiescence or assistance." [The Atlantic, 8/11/10. Amjad Atallah, 8/11/10. President George W. Bush, 1/29/02. AP, 11/26/08. LA Times, 12/06/08. Brookings, 12/08]

Iran policy requires a comprehensive approach. A comprehensive approach represents the best means of achieving a durable solution to the Iran problem. This approach includes:

The smart use of sanctions: Under Secretary of State William Burns outlined this point to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying "Let me emphasize that sanctions are not an end in themselves. Our foremost objective - one that is shared by our international partners and our allies in the region - is a durable diplomatic solution to the world's concerns about the Iranian nuclear program and the broader issues at stake with Iran. UN Security Council Resolution 1929 offers Iran a clear path toward the suspension of existing sanctions. [William Burns, 6/22/10]

Attention to the security of our allies:  The administration has made serious commitment to shoring up security for its allies. Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro discussed the administration's commitment to Israel at a Brookings event, citing that the Obama administration had requested $2.77 billion for Israel in 2010, "the largest such request in U.S. history." And, as Brookings expert Ken Pollack wrote in recent paper analyzing Iran, "providing sophisticated weaponry to Iran's neighbors could give them just enough to defeat an Iranian attack." [Andrew Shapiro, 7/16/10. Ken Pollack, May 2010]

Offer of engagement: David Ignatius recounted President Obama's latest opening to Tehran: "‘It is very important to put before the Iranians a clear set of steps that we would consider sufficient to show that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons,' Obama said, adding: ‘They should know what they can say "yes" to.' As in the past, he left open the possibility that the United States would accept a deal that allows Iran to maintain its civilian nuclear program, so long as Iran provides ‘confidence-building measures' to verify that it is not building a bomb." [David Ignatius, 8/4/10]

Insistence on respect for human rights: A careful but firm insistence on the human rights of Iranians is another important diplomatic instrument, providing unified international pressure and confirming for Iranians that Western governments oppose their rulers, not citizens. insideIRAN's Geneive  Abdo has outlined actions which could have a positive impact on Iranian dissidents while simultaneously pressuring the regime on both the nuclear issue and human rights.  She called attention to legislation introduced by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), which would sanction companies providing tools of repression used by the regime and pointed out that "the opposition would like help in any sort of technology that could be used to bypass the interruptions of the internet by the state," an issue addressed in legislation put forward by Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA). [Geneive Abdo, 2/07/10]

What We're Reading

The skies cleared over Moscow, giving residents a desperately needed break from air pollution thanks to favorable winds and some success in fighting wildfires that have choked the capital with clouds of acrid smog.

Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari flew in to a flood-hit area on for a first look at the two-week-old crisis after criticism over his trips abroad and his government's perceived slack response.

The Commerce Department announced that the U.S. trade deficit widened 18.8 percent, to $49.9 billion.

Osama Bin Laden's former cook and driver was sentenced to 14 years in prison by a Guantanamo Bay tribunal.

Brazil signed on to UN sanctions against Iran despite its misgivings over the measures following its efforts to negotiate a nuclear-swap deal with the Islamic state.

Russia announced that it had deployed an advanced surface-to-air missile system in the breakaway Georgian enclave of Abkhazia.

The Lebanese defense minister has said that the country will refuse military assistance from the US should any aid come with conditions that weapons not be used against Israel.

Uganda's rebel Lord's Resistance Army has been accused of a massive forced recruitment campaign in remote areas of central Africa.

A suspected car bomb exploded in the north of Colombia's capital Bogota outside a main radio station, slightly injuring six people and blowing out windows in a rare urban attack.

Worsening insurgent violence in many parts of the country is raising concern about Afghanistan's ability to hold a fair parliamentary election in little more than a month.

Commentary of the Day

Shuja Nawaz says rapid U.S. action to support Pakistan's flood relief efforts may help improve America's image among a population that generally resents the United States.

Max Bergmann documents how only a tiny fringe opposes New START.

Fred Kaplan calls Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plan to streamline defense spending "crafty but inadequate."