In a wonderfully crafted opening that praises President Obama for trying to stop Iran from going nuclear, the think tank aligned with the president nonetheless says we have to think about what happens if the president can't stop Iran. Fancy that. The plan is summarized as this d-based strategy:
[A] comprehensive framework to manage and mitigate the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran based on what they call the “Five Ds.” These five steps would deter Iranian nuclear and conventional threats, defend the U.S. homeland and American allies, disrupt Tehran’s destabilizing activities, de-escalate regional crises, and eventually denuclearize Iran’s program.
Read the details. They're as unicorn-based as they sound. We're to deter them when the question of nuts with nukes raises questions about whether deterrence applies.
Many of the measures are unlikely to see appropriations or are so aggressive (forward deploying nukes) that they would never be put in place by an administration that likes how the The Center for No American Security thinks.
Other measures would actually increase confrontation (that forward deployment suggestion is a two-fer in this regard) with an Iran that would feel emboldened by the shield of nuclear weapons. Leading me to wonder how we'd be more forceful than we are now when Iran has no nukes.
Other d-based solutions assume regional alliance building success when that objective would be harmed by Iran's nuclear clout.
And some are simply unicorn dung such as "shaping" Iran's nuclear arsenal and command-and-control to be less destabilizing! The details are trivial for those grand ambitions.
Although I do believe the Obama administration would get fully behind this pair of measures to cope with Iran's nuclear arsenal:
• Limiting U.S. military objectives in crises and conflicts with Iran to signal that regime change is not the goal of U.S. actions; and
• Providing the Iranian regime with “face-saving” exit ramps during crisis situations.
I kid you not. A couple of the ways of coping with Iran's nuclear arsenal would be to limit our objectives and allow Iran to appear to win something in those conflicts. Somewhere along the line the authors forgot what deterrence means in terms of American interests.
I have a rude question, too: if Israel already has lots of nukes, why does the CNAS paper say one response to contain Iran is to extend the American nuclear deterrence umbrella over Israel? Our resolve and reputation for taking action is judged as superior to Israel's? Seriously?
Never mind. That was a rhetorical question. Practically speaking, this is a farcical plan for coping with Iran's future nukes. But it isn't actually meant to be a viable strategy of containment. But that's okay. Because if all else fails and Iran goes nuclear, the administration needs a strategy to contain the political fallout here. This paper is it. Hell, it has 372 footnotes.
Anyway, CNAS forgot about the "sixth D," destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure. I still retain hope that even after Iran passes the nuclear threshold, we retain a military option President Obama would use.
UPDATE: Perhaps I underestimate the deep strategy of the administration:
The Iranian regime may be confident in its ability to outmaneuver its political and military opponents, but it cannot defeat the powerful forces of nature beneath its feet. Whether it be armed conflict, economic prosperity, or natural disasters, history has shown that the legitimacy of any government rests primarily on its ability to provide security for its people.
Until Iran’s leadership heeds this reality, it may just be a few earthquakes away from crumbling.
This might actually be our best chance for success. Smart Tectonics?
Oh God!
UPDATE: Related thoughts about the Obama administration's obvious unwillingness to stop Iran from going nuclear. I'd condemn Bush for failing to deal with Iran, but never forget that he'd have been impeached by Congress had he taken action without a time-stamped picture of Ahmadinejad standing next to a nuclear missile painting, "Die Jew Pigs!" with a sharpie.
