Connect to share and comment
Don't be mistaken, air strikes against Iran means war with Iran.
NEW YORK — I can’t help feeling that we’re seeing the beginning of a campaign to railroad the United States, one way or another, into attacking Iran – or of cleaning up an unfinished mess created by a much smaller Israeli strike.
The Atlantic, a fantastically interesting magazine and website, devoted its cover this month to the question of whether such a strike is inevitable. The gathering of experts, eager to talk tough on Iran, that followed has been instructive. And it all seems to have been timed perfectly with a full-court press by former officials and experts who have advocated air strikes for years.
Some of these voices have long campaigned for a U.S.-led air attack on Iranian facilities. Among those pushing the idea that an attack is imminent: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA operative and now a fellow at the conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Mideast experts Michael Eisenstadt and Patrick Clawson, both of Likudnik Washington Institute for Near East Studies, and John Bolton, the hawkish neo-con who served as a top diplomat during George W. Bush’s presidency.
Bolton this week upped the ante, taking to the airwaves (read: Fox News) to claim Israel has only a few more days to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, arguing that once Russia has fully fueled the Bushehr nuclear power plant it helped Iran build outside Tehran next week, any comprehensive effort to bomb Iranian facilities would spread radiation all over Iranian civilians. This is an image even Bolton recoils at, apparently.
Yet U.S. military planners concluded long ago that Iran’s nuclear program has already developed beyond the point where air strikes could destroy it. At best, air strikes push back the day when Iran attains nuclear capability (whether it actually “tests” a warhead is another question). During the early days of the Iraq war in 2003, perhaps, such a mission might have successfully set back Iran’s nuclear weapons program a few years (though destroying it, frankly, would always have required an invasion and a sustained UNSCOM-style inspections regime). Right now, the frustrating UN sanctions route appears the best of a bad set of options.
Few claim the air strikes would do long-term damage to Iran’s program. A recent assessment by James Phillips, a senior defense analyst from the conservative Heritage Foundation, concluded that Israeli air strikes could only “buy a little time” at this point. Phillips goes on to argue that it would be better for Israel to buy some time now than fight a nuclear war with Iran later – as if these are the only two options on the table.
But Phillips, like other analysts of various political leanings, also lays out a series of harrowing consequences from such an attack, including possible chemical and biological counterstrikes by Iranian missiles on Israel, the unleashing of Hezbollah and Hamas against Israeli and U.S. interests, the activation of Iranian agents in Iraq to foil the American withdrawal and, in the darkest scenario, the closing of the Straits of Hormuz and attacks on Saudi oil facilities – in effect, precipitation of a global oil crisis like none ever seen.
The fact is, in every year subsequent to our misguided Iraq invasion, both the expansion and “hardening” of Iran’s program, plus the political atmosphere in the Middle East, has lessened the potential for a successful preemptive air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. The United States, left to its own devices right now, certainly would not take this route. The stakes in Iraq and the global economy simply are too high. For the United States, the best-case scenario would be for the conflict to ossify into a standoff reliant on Israeli and U.S. nuclear deterrence. Sanctions would continue to give incentives for Iran to stay away from taking the final, fateful step – testing a weapon.