« Google's Future as Seen by Cringely... | Main | Howard Dean says the U.S. has lost - does he speak for the Democratic Party in 2005? »
December 07, 2005
Iran - Is War Inevitable?
This essay at the Officer's Club is strongly pesimistic on the topic of a peaceful resolution to Iran's nuclear program.
- Time is running out in the Iran versus West spat. The crisis is beginning to snowball, and its number of moving parts are increasing exponentially.
Today marked a suprising announcement from the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Muhammad El Baradei, as he confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran was only "months away" from developing a nuclear bomb. The announcement is surprising because the IAEA has long tried to "keep the peace" between Israel, the U.S. and Iran. El Baradei's announcement will escalate the crisis.
Also today, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (widely expected to replace Ariel Sharon as head of the Likud Party in elections next month) asserted that he would "not hesitate" to strike Iran as Prime Minister.
The point has not been lost on the Iranians, who just announced that they are purchasing sophisticated surface-to-air missiles from Russia.
Logic dictates that Israel would strike before the Iranians had a functional bomb, to assure that any Iranian retaliation would be non-nuclear. Military resolution of the crisis is looming...
His analysis is good and really if the Isralies honestly said to us "to preserve the survival of Israel we have to attack Iran's nuclear installations" we would likely go with them.
On the other side is this comment:
- I am just as hawkish as the next guy, but there are certain realities that we need to accept. The United States has already decided that it can live with a nuclear Iran. The Israelis will learn to live with it, as well. As distasteful an idea as that is, it is the fact of the matter.
Macho talk of a military strike on Iran's infrastructure usually fades away once genuine logistical considerations are put on the table. And short-sighted attack proponents spend little time discussing actual consequences of such a move. Have people forgotten that the Islamic Republic's army would make Iraq their live-fire range following a Western attack?
I respect the Israelis' military competence and survival insticts. They can be squirrelly when they need to be. But even this is too much for them - and they know it. This is no Osirak and operations in Iran are not the same as operations in Lebanon. Respect Israeli wisdom along with their martial prowess.
The Iranian AND Israeli saber-rattling is purely for domestic consumption and cooler heads in DC know that. Nuclear weapons would give the mullahs the sense of security they have always lacked. The United States will not attack a nuclear state unless its own existence is at risk and the mullahs know that. Don't look now, but the strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction is back in vogue!
I personally don't trust the current leadership of Iran. Theocracies are a deeply flawed system of government and Iran's is just as bad as previous theocracies. Corrupt, incompotent, paranoid, and each leader "holier than thou".
That said, Iran is geographically stronger than Iraq ever was. The Iranian population is large and capable of being unified (i.e. the majority are Persian with their own language, culture, and religion). Potentially Iran is a mid-level state, however the mis-management of the mullahs over the last 20 years has hurt them.
Iran would not be a country I'd like to attack (Syria is far weaker and more inviting). Given that a military strike against Iran is a matter of choice for us at this time, I don't think we will make that choice. Until the Iranians force us (or the Israelis) to attack them, I don't see us doing it within the next year.
Posted by rakhier at December 7, 2005 09:37 AM