I just don't think the Iranians fear us. We let the Iranians get away with murder when they supported Sadr's death squads in killing American troops. We backed down in Syria where Iran fights to keep that client state. We let Iran up off the economic mat shortly after getting serious sanctions in place for a toothless interim accord on Iran's nuclear programs. And Kerry seems focused on Israel rather than Iran as the biggest problem in the Middle East.
But does all this mean President Obama won't strike Iran? This author thinks we would strike:
I still believe that there are circumstances in which Obama would use force to stop Iran from gaining possession of a nuclear weapon. It's no secret that he prefers a diplomatic solution (one brought about by a crippling sanctions regime he orchestrated with significant help from Congress) to this problem. It is also no secret that he believes a military strike might have unintended consequences that could actually lead to a redoubling of the Iranian effort to cross the nuclear finish line. But there are certainly circumstances -- two immediately come to mind -- in which I think he would use force to prevent the Middle East from falling into a destructive spiral of nuclear proliferation.
The author thinks that if we discovered a major nuclear facility that it would be proof that Iran is not serious about talking. And we'd strike.
Or if we discovered that Iran was making a dash for a nuclear bomb. Then we'd strike, too.
I agree we'd strike.
Although I believe President Obama really does think we could contain and deter a nuclear Iran (why he thinks that since we can't seem to contain or deter a non-nuclear Iran now, I do not know).
But I think that the impact on the president's domestic agenda should Iran go nuclear on his watch would be so great that the president would believe that the fight for income equality or something requires a minimum of a weekend of bombing to make it look like he is at least trying to stop Iran.
Whether that would be enough is another issue altogether. This effort would have to be a war and not some unbelievably small attack that checks a box in time for the Sunday morning Beltway shows.
One problem is that I don't think we will be able to predict when Iran goes nuclear before they go nuclear, any more than we have accurately anticipated any other state's passing of the nuclear threshold.
One problem is that Iran knows we are looking for indications that they have the capacity to race for a nuke. Why do we assume they are playing the same game as we are?
If I was an Iranian nutball, I'd know that there are red lines that would prompt an Israeli strike even if I was (wrongly) confident that America under President Obama would not. And I'd take actions to get around that:
The problem from Iran's point of view is that they can't know if crossing one of these lines could trigger an American or Israeli preemptive strike out of fear that further delay in attacking would be too late to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. And if I was an Iranian nutball, I wouldn't assume the Americans and Israelis couldn't knock out my infrastructure.
Were I an Iranian nutball, under those circumstances, I'd want at least a few atomic warhead on hand before I announce capabilities to produce atomic weapons-grade material. Which would mean I'd have had to have bought some from either North Korea or Pakistan--or possibly even from some broke custodian of Russia's arsenal.
If Iran can announce both the ability to make nuclear bomb material and the possession of actual nuclear weapons--perhaps by detonating one in a test on their own territory--Tehran would quite possibly deter an attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
We're not dealing with idiots. If the Iranian mullahs believe there are red lines that trigger Israeli or American action, why wouldn't they take counter-actions rather than just blindly cross those lines and provide a pretext for military action against them?
My hope is that President Bush left President Obama the tools to take down Iran's nuclear infrastructure after Iran goes nuclear, while minimizing the risks of Iran using a nuke against an ally. I think Bush created it for his use should Iran go nuclear on his watch, since Speaker Pelosi would have impeached Bush for attacking Iran before Iran was openly nuclear.
But this capability--the Obama Option--is in President Obama's hands now. And we'll use it after it is known that Iran is nuclear:
Then we'll strike hard using advance penetrating precision weapons with a layer of defenses backstopping our effort to kill leakers, stretching from the Iranian target site back to our assets that might be struck. We'll use modified Sidewinders and AMRAAM on fighters over the enemy target to hit missiles in their boost phase, airborne PAC-3 missiles to strike missiles in flight once we know where the enemy missiles are headed, and ground-based point defense PAC-3s and area missile defenses based on land and sea. Add in airborne lasers later. Hopefully, we nail the missiles on the ground and if not, somebody on the ballistic arc manages a hit before detonation over the Iranians' target.
Remember, we are working with allies from the Gulf to eastern Europe to build missile defenses. Even President Obama's decision to scrap President Bush's plan for eastern Europe missile defenses works with this theory. Bush's system would have taken longer to deploy. The Obama system is going online this year, and while incapable of protecting our east coast, will protect southeastern Europe.
We have the advantage of being out of range of any current Iranian missiles launched from Iran. So that isn't an immediate problem. Unless Iran sends a missile-in-a-box by sea to the Atlantic; or unless Iran can count on a launch pad in Venezuela, which Iran has been friendly with, we are not at risk (although our troops in the Gulf region would be). So with a sword and shield, we'll hit Iran's nuclear facilities hard while counting on layers of missile defenses to stop anything that leaks through our attacks.
Remember, too, that while under attack, Iran is far less likely to be able to volley fire nuclear tipped missiles mixed with conventional missiles to overwhelm missile defenses. No, while under attack they'll fire them when ready before they lose them, and so our shields will be better able to intercept them.
So I'm not without hope, despite the farcical nuclear interim deal with Iran. I'd prefer it if there was a revolt in Iran that overthrows the Iranian mullah regime rather than counting on a military option. But my hopes for that route have been shattered for 11 years, now.
Now my hopes rest on the Obama Option.
