Jay Currie

Over at Antonias the usual lefties are getting rather worried that the nasty Americans will a) invade Iran, b) use nukes, c) make up the evidence. The idea that Iran is, well, a bit of a problem seems to have escaped these folks entirely.

Professor Cole pours oils upon the roiling waters with a rather neat and soothing analysis of the Iranian situation:

What is really going on here is a ratcheting war of rhetoric. The Iranian hard liners are down to a popularity rating in Iran of about 15%. They are using their challenge to the Bush administration over their perfectly legal civilian nuclear energy research program as a way of enhancing their nationalist credentials in Iran.

Likewise, Bush is trying to shore up his base, which is desperately unhappy with the Iraq situation, by rattling sabres at Iran. Bush’s poll numbers are so low, often in the mid-30s, that he must have lost part of his base to produce this result. Iran is a great deus ex machina for Bush. Rally around the flag yet again.

If this international game of chicken goes wrong, then the whole Middle East and much of Western Europe could go up in flames. The real threat here is not unconventional war, which Iran cannot fight for the foreseeable future. It is the spread of Iraq-style instability to more countries in the region.
informed comment

I rarely agree with so much as a comma that Cole writes; but he has something with his insight that a good deal of Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is about the mullahs’ sagging domestic support. (Of course Cole then goes on to the usual “Wag the Dog” spin on Bush; but no matter.)

It is rather likely that the Iranians with their claims of super torpedos and radar invisible missles, as well as the promotion of a relatively minor uranium enrichment, are trying to pursuade increasingly disenchanted Iranians that the Ahmadinejad government is restoring national pride or some such. However, the problem which confronts the US, Europe and the UN is whether or not there are other, covert, programs which are producing weapons grade material.

Much of this debate has been ignited by Seymour Hersch’s New Yorker piece which suggests that the US is considering using tactical nukes to end the Iranian nuclear program. I’ve no doubt that war planners have nuclear bunker busters on the table. That’s what military planners do.

But before any decision is taken to attack Iran with or without nukes, the more basic question has to be answered: what is the objective of the mission?

Bush should have learned from the Iraqi example that any objective is going to draw critics. In this case I suspect that spin is going to be wasted. The best argument for intervention will be that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the region, to Israel specifically and, potentially, to Europe. As such it will not be allowed to stand and the only question is how bloody the war is going to be.

A nuclear capable Iran could still be attacked; but it would have the capacity to say, “Touch us and Tel Aviv is a crater.” And, here is the real point – Isreal enjoys a thirty year lead in the development of nuclear warhead and delivery technology. Long before Tel Aviv is turned to glass with a “Hail Mary” shot from Iran, the Israelis will ensure that that does not happen.

An Israeli attack on Iran would be widely percieved as having the blessing of the United States (which would probably be the case). It would also set the Muslim “street” seething, create chaos in much of Iraq and, potentially, kill an awful lot of Iranians. Worse, it might not succeed.

Pre-empting the Israelis is, in fact, a pretty sound reason for forcing the pace on Iran. But it is not a justification for going nuclear. At least not yet.

There is some talk of sanctions but, as the Iraqi experience demonstrated, sanctions tend to punish the population while leaving the leadership in place. And, so long as there are French and Russian “businessmen” there is little chance of sanctions actually working.

Passing ever more belligerent UN resolutions will be lots of fun; but the utter corrruption and ineffectiveness of the UN will likely impede any action being taken.

There are, however, a few things short of full scale war which might increase the pressure on the Iranian regime.

The first would be to invade and secure the area of Iran which surrounds the Strait of Hormuz. A Marine division or two with full on air support could accomplish this in a matter of a few days and thereby relieve the pressure Iran might be able to exert on the world’s oil trade.

The second, and this would be equally feasible, would be to attack and capture Khuzestan. this small province, adjacent to Iraq and populated by Arabs rather than Persians, contains the bulk of Iran’s oil. In this case it would indeed be “about the oil”.

There would be no need for sanctions if, at a stroke, Iran’s oil reserves were taken from her. It would be a matter of a few months before the Iranian regime was on the ropes.

None of these are easy or bloodless strategies. But, compared to the toll a nuclear enabled Iran could take, this limited attack might lead to an eventually peaceful solution.

The alternative is, of course, to do nothing and hope for the best. Who knows, maybe the hidden ayatollah will reveal himself and patiently explain that Islam really is the Religion of Peace.