Contain Iran

First off, welcome to Jon and Elke, our newest contributors! Excellent first posts guys, I'm glad everyone is getting involved.

In the past month there has been an uptick in the debate on Iran and its nuclear weapons program. The debate was largely sparked by this article in The Atlantic Monthly magazine, which details just how seriously the Israelis are preparing for a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. I cannot stress enough how large of a strategic mistake a preemptive strike would be for Israel and America.

Lets imagine for a second what would happen if Israel ordered an air strike:

- President Obama as well as America's military chain of command, both here in Washington and local commanders in the Middle East, would be notified with less than an hour to go before the strike would be launched. There would be no time to persuade the Israelis to stop, at that point the loss of face would be too great to swallow. No American President or military commander would order our forces to shoot down Israeli planes, so the strike would go through as planned.

- The strike would be largely successful in destroying the intended targets, although a number of Israelis would be shot down and either killed or captured. Iran would immediately respond by unleashing Hezbollah in south Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Israel would have no choice but to send ground forces into both areas to halt the rocket attacks. A possibility exists that Syria would openly declare war on Israel, although this is unlikely as this would give the IDF the green light to openly attack Syria's technologically inferior forces.

- In a best case scenario, Israel would claim responsibility for the attack and the US would deny all involvement, and Iran would focus its reprisals against Israel. However, it is not hard to imagine the Revolutionary Guard demanding reprisals again US forces as well. This would lead to the often threatened attempt to close the straights of Hormuz. The attempt would be largely unsuccessful, but the US Navy would probably lose several ships or at least have several suffer severe damage. Iran's Quds force of irregulars would probably infiltrate Iraq and target any American forces remaining as well as attempt to destabilize the Iraqi government. The US Military would be forced to respond by targeting Iranian Naval and Air assets with air strikes, as well as deploying special forces along the Iran-Iraq border and possibly sending forces back into Iraq to stabilize the situation.

-Now lets look at the big picture strategic consequences of an Israeli strike against Iran. International condemnation would occur on an unseen scale. The UN Security Council very well might condemn Israel, with only the US and UK abstaining or voting against the resolution. International public opinion would turn completely against Israel. Any prospect for resolving the Palestinian situation would be completely lost as other Arab nation would refuse to cooperate with Israel. In Iran, the Ayatollah's control over the country would be vastly strengthened, as would the role the Revolutionary Guard plays in that country's government and economy. The Green Movement would be completely discredited. Iranian nationalism would run at an all time high. Ironically enough, the Iranian government would probably use the strike as a "proof" that its once "peaceful" nuclear program must not be used to develop strategic deterrent weapons. At best the Iranian nuclear weapons program would be set back 10 years. Oil prices would skyrocket and remain high for sometime, possibly forcing countries to tap into their strategic reserves to stabilize the market. The rise in oil prices could shock the fragile financial market, possibly triggering another global recession. Diplomatic relations between Iran and the west would be ruined for years. Lastly, al-Qaeda would once again have another example of western/Israeli aggression to use as a rallying call for new forces.

Essentially, while a strike would accomplish the short term goal of delaying Iran's development of a nuclear bomb, it would ultimately harm Israel's long term security. Now let me be clear, I think Iran's nuclear program is designed to give them the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. However, just because Iran wants the ability to assemble a bomb doesn't mean it has decided it wants one. What Iran does want is to assume the mantle as a regional power and counterweight to America and Israel in the Middle East. So what should the United States do?

A recent article on Foreign Policy's website advocated a policy of containment. While I would highly recommend you read the whole article, its title perhaps is all that you really need to know. "It (containment) worked on Saddam" refers to the successful usage of containment on Iraq by the United States between Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The author is a former CIA case officer, and he explains how it was only after the ill advised invasion of Iraq that the US realized how successful containment had been.

I see no reason why a similar policy couldn't work on Iran. The recently passed sanctions against Iran are an excellent example of the sort of steps the US can take. Of course, Iran will not feel real pain unless Russia and China decide to cut off their patronage, and therein lies the catch-22 for Iran. If it were to test a nuclear weapon, or even declare that it had a weapon, it would lose much of the international sympathy it currently enjoys. Turkey and Brazil would sheepishly back away from their erstwhile friend, having had their fingers burned on their first foray onto the 21st century international affairs hotplate. China and Russia would be furious and embarrassed, and forced to allow strengthened sanctions to proceed through the UN. America and its allies position would be strengthened, and sympathy would even increase for Israel. The Green Movement would be strengthened, and might even be able to use the Iranian government's blunder as a catalyst for a new revolution.

I suspect that the Iranian government is aware of these strategic consequences, despite the occasional appearance of being completely insane. I think they are playing a very dangerous game to propel themselves into a more important international role, and have no true desire to have a nuclear weapon solely for the purpose of having one. I also suspect that, despite his rhetoric, President Obama has decided against a preemptive strike on Iran. The strategic price would be too high for the limited benefits. The US military is over strained as it is, stuck between dwindling bank accounts on one side and over committed forces on the other. The trick will be to restrain Israel from attacking Iran. I would point to the case of North Korea. The North Korean's have had a nuclear weapon for several years now. They reside in an equally volatile area of the world, and have the ability to destroy Seoul, Tokyo, and Guam if they wished. However, the US has not launched an invasion or strikes against North Korea because it understands that the strategic cost would be too high (i.e World War III with China). An even better example of containment would be the Cold War. For 45 year the US contained the Soviet Union, sometimes poorly, but it never had to use nuclear weapons or engage in open war with the Soviets. If we could contain the USSR, we can contain Iran.