Abstract
The Iranian government had been engaged in a rearmament process for the last two decades. However during the last two years, the international community had found credible information about the nuclear weapon aspirations of the Iranian rearmament process. Iran’s hostile past for the western nations, continuous support to terrorist groups, support of Antisemitism and poor human rights records in combination with its nuclear aspirations pose a threat to world peace. Should the United States government adopt a more conciliatory or more confrontational policy towards the Iranian regime? This paper will advocates a policy forming a global alliance against Iranian nuclear programs and usage of wider level global sanctions as a means to exert pressure against the Iranian regime.
According to the annual intelligence assessment presented to Israel's Knesset on July 21, 2004, Iran's nuclear program is the biggest threat facing the national security of Israel. These sentiments are also shared by the United States as the evidence on Iranian nuclear aspirations is growing every day. “Iranian leaders now believe that superior military power is decisive in shaping the strategic environment in Middle East. Force, far from being a passé, is an essential instrument of power” . In the backlight, Iran will be poised to develop a grand arsenal, which can give a strategic advantage to Iran in the Middle Eastern power balance. According to American Defense analyst Chubin, Henry Sokolski and Anthony Cordesman, although Iranians for the last several years had been obtaining various conventional weapons from different sources, the Iranian administration is still a long way from being militarily effective. Under this hindsight, it is not hard to understand the Iranian nuclear aspirations to gain a strategic advantage to retain regional hegemony and moreover to spread its influence in the Middle East and World politics. However, considering the Iranian hostile nature towards the United States and its allies, its opposition to Israel, its support to foreign terrorist groups and its worst human rights record, the Iranian obtaining nuclear weapons will have far reaching consequence to world peace and stability. Although the Iranian human rights record will not have a direct co-relation with how Iranian nuclear aspirations will affect the world stability, the other factors such as Iranian open hostility to United States, its support to terrorist groups in Middle East while its negative contributions to Middle Eastern peace process will have direct co-relations. Let us analyze how this situation would affect the interests of the United States.
The major problem in Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons is that the nuclear weapons will act as a deterrent so the Iranian regime will not be vulnerable to American conventional military retaliations. Thus Iran can pursue the aggressive anti-American foreign policy it had pursued in early 1990’s’ . This will make Iran the leading anti American force which would be capable of forming an anti American alliance with other hostile Arabic states and terrorist groups to drive the United States and conservative Arabic government out of power in Middle East. The hostile behavior of the current Ahmadjian regime would further consolidate this theory. However, it is important to note that there are no significant possibilities of Iranians providing nuclear weapons to terrorist groups such as Al Queda due to Iran’s own vulnerability for external terrorist groups. The second problem of Iranians acquiring nuclear weapon is further proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. For an example, countries like Saudi Arabia may want to resort to nuclear programs to deter an Iranian threat. The obtainment of nuclear weapon by unstable Middle Eastern countries will further widen possibilities of Nuclear weapons reaching the hands of extremist groups such as Al Queda.
The paper will now consider three options for the current crisis: a military option, a regime change option and an option of imposing wider sanction. First, let us consider the military option. Military options regarding Iran can be categorized into air strikes and a ground invasion. Considering air strikes, two dozen suspected nuclear facilities in Iran including the 1000-megawatt nuclear plant Bushehr would be a major target of such strikes. These proposed American air strikes on Iran would highly resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. The American forces would have to use B-2 stealth bombers supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters to attack the two-dozen suspected nuclear sites. Military planners could tailor their attack either to have limited air strikes targeting crucial Iranian facilities in an effort to delay or obstruct the Iranian program or the military could opt for a comprehensive set of strikes against a wide range of targets. This could include both conventional and unconventional forces that might be used to counterattack against US forces in Iraq. It is important to note that there are many US aircraft still in the gulf region supporting Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom which could be used for such operation against Iran.
However, there are many uncertainties regarding air strikes against Iran. One major uncertainty concerning the probability of an air strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure is the substantiality of American and Israeli assessments and completeness of their understanding of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. “Iran appears to have a complete copy of Pakistan's fissile material production complex -- uranium conversion, uranium enrichment, heavy water production, and a heavy water plutonium production reactor. Elements of these facilities have been hardened against attack, notably the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, which has been buried under a thick layer of earth.” Anti-aircraft missiles and guns heavily defend all of these facilities. Furthermore, Iranian nuclear facilities are reportedly hidden in various dispersed locations.
A September 2004 analysis by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center concluded that, "As for eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities militarily, the U.S. and Israel lack sufficient targeting intelligence to do this. In fact, Iran has long had considerable success in concealing its nuclear activities from U.S. intelligence analysts and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors (the latter recently warned against assuming the agency could find all of Iran's illicit uranium enrichment activities). As it is, Iran could have already hidden all it needs to reconstitute a bomb program assuming its known declared nuclear plants are hit." Iran also has a rather significant air defense capability, which could complicate the American plans. It is also possible that Iran could use its ballistic missiles to strike US or allied targets throughout the Persian Gulf region. Furthermore, an air strike can lead the Iranian naval wing to disrupt the shipping activity in the Persian Gulf, which could have significant repercussions to US economy.
Having considered the air strike option and its uncertainties, let us analyze the all-out ground invasion of the military option. An all-out ground offensive would involve hundreds of thousands of troops invading Iranian borders for a possible regime change or to neutralize all Iranian nuclear and offensive structures. However, a ground invasion by United States would confront many challenges. A major challenge is that the U.S. military is already stretched thin with its commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Currently, the Iraq conflict involves seventeen American brigades and three division headquarters. Afghanistan involves another division headquarters and three brigades. “The 2nd Infantry Division is committed to defending the Republic of Korea.
Two more divisions are carrying out peacekeeping in various parts of the world (the Sinai, Kosovo, and Bosnia being major deployments on that front). This is seven out of 24 division available (12 active, 8 National Guard, 3 active Marine, one reserve Marine).” The Army had been spread out due to these circumstances and until the situation in Iraq stabilizes or new additional divisions are formed up, the current limitations will exist. The Iraq war had become an insurgency, which could exist for several more years. There are high possibilities of such an insurgency developing in Iran at the time of a ground invasion. The significant large land areas of Iran would further contribute to the constraints of the military. Together with these current military constraints, assembling a broad international coalition would be even more difficult than it was for the Iraq war. “For one thing, the British don’t sound very willing. And let’s face it, without the British, we don’t have a coalition,” said Walter Russell Mead , a military expert with the Council on Foreign Relations . Furthermore, any military action can lead to drastic retaliations from the Iranians. “I do not believe that Iran will take on the United States in a major confrontation,” according to retired Air Force Gen. Tom McInerney. Without a direct military response from Iran, the possibility exists for an “asymmetrical response” — terror attacks on Americans throughout the world and in the United States. In such scenario, the militarily desperate Iranians may even form an alliance with Al Qaeda to launch terrorist attacks on United States, according to McInerney.
Having considered the military options and its setbacks, let us analyze the option of a regime change in Iran. Such an American funded regime could be designed to support and fund Iranian reformist groups who are more inclined to strike a deal with the Western world on international issues including the nuclear issue. This approach is of a lesser risk than a military option as this avoids direct military confrontations with Iran. Meanwhile, the growing hostility of the Iranian public for the current regime would bolster the prospect of an Iranian regime change. This regime change option would involve both covert action and overt diplomatic action to topple the Iranian government. However, an American funded Iranian regime change would confront severe challenges. The situation in Iran is different than it was in 1953 when United States and Great Britain engineered a military coup for a regime change. The Iranian military is highly loyal to the regime and are tightly bound by political networks that would make it difficult for United States agents to infiltrate into Iranian military. This would give United States only one option of sparking a popular revolution against the present Iranian regime. This option would also lead to severe problems. The Iranian society, having been under a tightly controlled rule with xenophobic inclinations, would not be highly favorable towards a popular revolution. If the American support for such a regime change is exposed to the public, the public support could further e for such regime change. Furthermore, revolution scenario is highly impossible due to the Iranian regime’s increasing control of the media. The lack of capable leaders for such a revolution would further worsen the situation. Finally, even with a capable leader and a some degree of popular support, such a revolution of regime change would be a highly long term project and the nuclear clock could go off much before the regime-change clock.
Having considered the military option and regime change option in Iran, finally, let us consider the option of wider level international sanctions against Iran. In the past, whenever the United States resorted to sanctions, Iranians have always turned to Europe, Russia and Japan for aid and trade. However, a possible counteract for this pattern is to come to an understanding with the five permanent Security Council members — the United States, Britain, Russia, France and China and major international players who have a history of transactions with Iran. This would involve diplomatic steps including substantial negotiations with the above countries and the creation of United Nations resolution for Iran. This draft resolution formed by major world powers must demand the Iranians to suspend the nuclear enrichment activities to a given deadline. The resolution should include wider international sanctions if Iranian administration does not comply with it. These sanctions should include asset freezing of companies and individuals inside Iranian administration officials and military figures. This draft should further prohibit the exporting of any arms or material related to Iranian weapons programs by other United Nations countries. Furthermore, the U.N member countries should also be obligated to prohibit any of their citizens from transporting or purchasing any such materials for Iran. Furthermore, the resolution should block UN member governments and financial institutions from offering Iran grants, financial assistance or loans except for humanitarian and developmental purposes. Considering the declining Iranian economy and public opinion against the Ahmadjian regime, such a resolution would create a negative domestic situation that will pose an immediate threat to the survival of the current Iranian regime. This situation would force the current Iranian administration to re-consider its nuclear aspirations.
In conclusion, this paper analyzed the military option and the regime change option, and recognized that both options would not be viable against Iran in the current scenario. An American military presence in Iran would not be presently practical with American involvements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Iranian response to such military action could also be costly while military attacks including air strikes would not ensure the total destruction of Iranian nuclear capability. Furthermore, the regime change option would not be viable due to the ground realities and time constraints. In this circumstance, the paper recommends wider international sanctions against the Iranian nuclear program and Iranian nuclear advocates. This would create an imminent economic and political situation in which the current Iranian regime would be forced to give up its nuclear program as a bargain for its political survival.
Reference
Read also: American Policy and The Islamic Republic of Iran by Geoffrey Kemp. p51
Read also: American Policy and The Islamic Republic of Iran by Geoffrey Kemp Kemp p52
Read also: Chubin, Iran’s National Security Policy & American Policy & The Islamic Republic of Iran
See also: Living with a Nuclear Iran? By Micheal Eisenstadt
Read also: The Persian Puzzle by Kenneth M. Pollack
Read also: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/bushehr.htm
Read also: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes-doubt.htm
Getting Ready for Nuclear-Ready Iran by Edited by. Henry Sokolski. Patrick Clawson. P6
Read also: Chubin, Iran’s National Security Policy
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/200511123.asp
Read also: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154245,00.html
Read also: The Persian Puzzle by Kenneth M. Pollack
Read also: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21wed2.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Read also: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-currency14mar14,1,2513696.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true
Read also: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701143.html
« return.