The Façade of Diplomacy – why this confrontation is about more than Iranian nukes
What becomes quite clear from the Hersh piece is that this confrontation is about much more than Iran’s nuclear capability. Again, like with Iraq, nuclear development is being used as the Trojan Horse to sell a strike with wider strategic aims – regime change, stability of oil supply, to stop Iranian support for terror etc. Each can be debated on its own merits, but lets stop pretending that this is just about nuclear weapons.
As briefly as possible, the article illuminates the following:
The Plan: Hersh reports that a massive bombing campaign is being planned with the hopes of stalling nuclear development and forcing regime change. A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon told Hersh that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.” He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ If this is the meat of the plan, we should indeed be concerned.
The idea is to hit several hundred targets and includes the use of tactical nuclear weapons to strike underground centrifuge production facilities.
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles.
While ostensibly to slow nuclear production capability (by 3-5 years), the strike plan goes far beyond this.
The Pentagon adviser said that, in the event of an attack, the Air Force intended to strike many hundreds of targets in Iran but that “ninety-nine per cent of them have nothing to do with proliferation. There are people who believe it’s the way to operate”—that the Administration can achieve its policy goals in Iran with a bombing campaign, an idea that has been supported by neoconservatives.
And on a geopolitical level:
“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. “That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”
Again, the nuclear issue is clearly being used as the selling point for wider strategic aims – regime change and control in the middle east.
Opposition: There is significant opposition to such a strike and to the use of nuclear weapons. This comes from among others, the British government, from within the UN military and from the IAEA.
First, “The Brits think this is a very bad idea,” Flynt Leverett, a former National Security Council staff member who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center, told Hersh. “but they’re really worried we’re going to do it.”
Second, many within the US military are against the strike. A Pentagon advisor told Hersh that there was a serious push from some in the administration to use tactical nukes. Again, this shows that the push is coming from civilian, rather than military leadership:
He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. “There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.” The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”
Third, the IAEA is amazed at the lack of interest in actually inspecting to see if Iran has production capability. The reasons for this should be obvious.
The threat of American military action has created dismay at the headquarters of the I.A.E.A., in Vienna. The agency’s officials believe that Iran wants to be able to make a nuclear weapon, but “nobody has presented an inch of evidence of a parallel nuclear-weapons program in Iran”
...
Another diplomat in Vienna asked me, “Why would the West take the risk of going to war against that kind of target without giving it to the I.A.E.A. to verify? We’re low-cost, and we can create a program that will force Iran to put its cards on the table.” A Western Ambassador in Vienna expressed similar distress at the White House’s dismissal of the I.A.E.A. He said, “If you don’t believe that the I.A.E.A. can establish an inspection system—if you don’t trust them—you can only bomb.”
Consequences: As I have commented before, the consequences of a strike against Iran are potentially massive and must be seen as part of the strategic calculus. Like the post war period in Iraq, human costs must be viewed in a strategic light. As Richard Armitage poignantly told Hersh:
“What will happen in the other Islamic countries? What ability does Iran have to reach us and touch us globally—that is, terrorism? Will Syria and Lebanon up the pressure on Israel? What does the attack do to our already diminished international standing? And what does this mean for Russia, China, and the U.N. Security Council?”
Further:
“If you attack,” a high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna, “Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.”
As a Pentagon advisor also stated: “If the diplomatic process doesn’t work, there is no military ‘solution.’ There may be a military option, but the impact could be catastrophic.”
Messianic?: A frightening aspect of this debate (or lack thereof) is the messianic nature of many comments by Bush. As one official told Hersh:
Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
But is diplomacy being actually taken seriously? Most evidence seems to suggest that it is not. As a senior diplomat told Hersh: “There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution.” The reason for this gall should be apparent. Diplomacy could only serve to stop nuclear production. It will not result in regime change, or in a US ally in control, nor in permanent military bases in Iran. Just like in Iraq, containment may have worked to stop WMD production, but it was not deemed sufficient for wider US aims. Plus ca change...
(cross posted at taylorowen.com)