Forum: Do you consider a nuclear armed Iran a problem? If so, how would you deal with it?

The Watcher’s Council


Every week on Monday morning, the Council and invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum with short takes on a major issue of the day.

Chuck Hagel, John Kerry and probably John Brennan are now confirmed as the heads of our national security/foreign policy team and President Obama recently used the sequester as an excuse to avoid deploying an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf. These items and the waiver ridden sanctions are sending an obvious signal to the Iranians on how President Obama views a nuclear armed Iran.

This week’s question: Do you consider a nuclear armed Iran a problem? If so, how would you deal with it?

The Razor: Most Iranians, including the opposition to the current regime, support a nuclear armed Iran. Persia has a long history and most of it was spent as a regional superpower. Nuclear weapons will prove to the world that Iran/Persia is a superpower that cannot be ignored.

I believe it’s likely that Iran will test a nuclear bomb sometime before the end of Obama’s term. I don’t see how anyone, including the Israelis, can stop it without concerted effort. Unfortunately the United States prevents this acting in concert by serving as a linchpin linking the Turks and Saudi Arabia with Israel. Elections have consequences, and I believe we will be feeling the consequences of this past election for decades to come. The Obama administration is simply blind to the threat a nuclear Iran presents, viewing Jews and Republican as greater threats than nuclear armed Iranians. As a result the necessary coalition to stop Iran is not there. Instead the Turks and Saudis will pursue their own programs and the Israelis will burn the midnight oil trying to figure out a plan to stop the Iranians on their own to no avail.

How would I deal with it? Before Iran went nuclear I would build a coalition of the willing, uniting the Gulf Arab states with Israel and Turkey to attack Iran’s nuclear sites, but Obama doesn’t have the stomach for such actions and I don’t have the power. Once Iran goes nuclear there isn’t much you can do except contain the threat by stationing anti-missile defenses in friendly nations. While a nuclear capable Iran presents a serious threat, it will be using 1980s technology against 2010s defensive technology, decreasing the likelihood of a successful nuclear strike. If Iran is a rational actor as the Obama administration supposes, then it will be deterred by these defenses. If it’s not, then the low chances of a successful nuclear attack against an adversary like Israel and the retaliation such an attack would invite may be enough to force Iranians to act responsibly. If not and the mullahs running the show in Iran really believe that 13th Imam stuff, then we’ll be in for some interesting fireworks over Iran.

I believe the long term solution is for regime change. A secular and democratic Iran with nukes would not be a big problem just as India is not a problem. But that requires long-term efforts that this administration simply shows no interest in. Now long-term efforts at destroying the Israeli Likud, the American Republican party and the Obama administration’s domestic enemies, the present administration has lots of interest in that…

Wolf Howling: A nuclear Iran presents an existential and imminent threat to the world justifying the immediate use of military force.

Since the dawn of their religion, adherents to the Shia’ism observed a ‘wall between mosque and state’ of sorts, with the senior clerics staying out of politics, preferring to act as advisers to – and critics of – whatever shah might be in power. In 1979, Ayatollah Khohemeini changed all of that, not merely taking control of the Iranian government, but giving his version of twelver Shia’ism a new mission – to spread his revolution throughout the world. The revolution was drenched in blood – and the Iranian government has stayed drenched in blood ever since. A few years ago, then Sec. of Defense Robert Gates, speaking extemporaneously on Iran, stated:

Everywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents – Christians, Jews and Muslims alike…. There can be little doubt that their destabilizing foreign policies are a threat to the interests of the United States, to the interests of every country in the Middle East, and to the interests of all countries within the range of the ballistic missiles Iran is developing.

That is an accurate description of the current Iranian regime. This is not a regime that knows any moral limits in its quest to expand its revolution. It is not a regime that can be trusted to act rationally, nor one that can be expected to be deterred by the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. Moreover, each day this regime continues on its quest for a nuclear arsenal, the mad mullahs are acting as a catalyst for other Muslim countries to do likewise. As much as the threat of a nuclear armed Iran should be seen as a mortal threat, a nuclear armed Yemen or Saudi Arabia, both countries dominated by the ideology that animates al-Qaeda, present equally nightmare scenarios.

The only thing the regime of the mad mullahs has responded to since its birth in 1979 has been the application or threat of massive force. Each day that we allow the mad mullahs to continue on their quest for a nuclear arsenal simply adds more to the cost in gold and blood our nation will have to pay to end this threat – and it is a bill that could destroy us and others.

The parallels to 1936 to 1939, during which Hitler’s Germany armed its war machine, are simply too blatant to ignore. Hitler was every bit as ideologically driven as the mad mullahs of today. According to post war interviews with Nazi generals, had France or Britain opted to even threaten force through at least 1937, WWII could have been avoided. Instead both opted to talk with Hitler until he was ready to release the dogs of war. In the end, WWII cost over 50 million lives and ruined the economies of Europe for decades. And do note, that was as a result of conventional war. The time for talks with Iran ended years ago. We are now just repeating the same mistakes of pre-WWII Britain and France. If we cannot change the regime of the mad mullahs, than we need to destroy it – now.

The Noisy Room: As long as Iran is a sharia state, an Iran armed with ‘anything’ militarily speaking is a problem. Cease all commerce with them, discourage commerce with them and provide Israel with whatever she needs to protect herself.

I will even take it further… In my opinion, Iran has been our nemesis from the beginning. They are the biggest exporter of terrorism in the world and have been at war with Israel through proxies for some time. Rumor has it, they have cells here in the US and they will at some point attack us from within and from without. Iran is the one we should have gone to war with when the Iranian hostage crisis occurred decades ago. We should never have let them begin development of nukes. We knew they would use them at the very least as leverage to extort the planet into getting what they want – power and the spread of a worldwide caliphate. Now, they are on the verge of having nukes to use against the Little Satan and the Great Satan. We should be sabotaging their cyber networks and their military and nuke capabilities.

We are over the red line of deterring conflict. I do believe all that is left is war, but our leadership is content with Iran having nukes. Obama’s okay with our enemies having nukes; you have to appreciate the irony that he wants rid the domestic population of small arms. Obama supports Islam and condones it and believes all Islamic states should have nuclear capability, so he will not preemptively strike Iran. But war is coming. The question is, will America survive? I believe Israel will, I’m just not so sure about the US.

JoshuaPundit: There’s one thing that’s critically important and frequently missed in discussions about foreign policy and the Middle East in particular, in my opinion. We have to see the Iranians as they see themselves, and realize how they see us.

The Iranians see themselves as a nation of destiny and rising power with a history of empire and Allah on their side.

To the Ayatollahs, we are a decadent, waning power that fears them, and with a single exception that occurred during President Reagan’s term, our entire interaction with Iran since 1979 bears this out to them. They have overrun an American embassy and taken our diplomats hostage, ordered and sponsored attacks on U.S. troops in Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, forced what they consider a precipitous American retreat from Iraq, openly threatened us and countries we consider our allies including Saudi Arabia. They’ve even imprisoned and held U.S. citizens for ransom. And they’ve made an open mockery out of any attempts at negotiation for years.

The Iranians were even complicit in 9/11. Even the 9/11 Commission’s report mentioned that, and evidence of Iran’s role in 9/11 was a major part of a ruling in Federal court.

Yet we have never responded in the way the Iranians would respond themselves to a nation they did not consider strong and a threat. We have responded in a way that validates their view of us.

Allowing a nuclear Iran would be a significant security threat to the United States. The danger comes not only from the weapons themselves, but from the attitude inherent in the Shi’ite mentality, and particularly in the Twelver sect… and whom the Iranians might decide to give those weapons to, and who else in the region might began to fashion nuclear weapons of their own as a result.

Containment is impossible, because we are not dealing with rational actors here. There’s a significant amount of Shi’ite theology that actually welcomes apocalypse as the vehicle for the return of the Hidden Imam and Allah’s kingdom on earth. Agreement is impossible because we have nothing they want except perhaps our complete retreat from the Middle East, certainly nothing they’re willing to trade their nuclear weapons program for, which they see as insuring their rise as the dominant power in the region. President Obama’s farcical removal of Moamar Khaddaffi after he’d given up his nuclear program and was actually helping us take out Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb has pretty much insured that no one else is going to do anything like that again unless they have a pretty compelling reason. That especially applies to Iran. Not only that, but to the Iranians we are not only infidels with whom no agreement is binding, but fools for constantly falling for these continued ‘negotiation’ gambits’ that simply spin out the game and buy them time.

Regime change, while desirable is probably not going to make as much of a difference as people seem to think, nor should it be our concern, except over the long term.

How would I handle this? First, I would sit down with the JCS and map out a contingency plan assuming we don’t already have one. In fact, I once sketched out what this might look like with the assistance of some very interesting accomplices a few years ago, and while it would have been far easier to pull off then and some details have changed (for instance, we no longer have forces in Iraq), most of it is still valid.

Once that was done and what needed to be deployed was deployed, I would invite President Ahmadinejad to the White House without any preconditions. Notice that I would make the Iranians come to me on my turf rather than meeting in Europe or some Islamic country with an underling, or involving any other power.

President Ahmadinejad would almost certainly not come, which of course would be an answer in itself. If President Ahmadinejad did come to America, we would have a meeting and what would probably be a very short conversation about settling our differences. That conversation would almost certainly not be productive, but it would establish that an attempt at diplomacy was made.

I would then immediately ban them from using the American banking system any nation processing Iranian oil payments or transactions with Iran’s central bank. The Iranians would certainly find others to launder transactions for them on a gold basis like our ‘ally’ Turkey, but given the state of the rial and Iran’s economy generally this would be a devastating blow. It would essentially force countries to choose to deal with Iran or with America and the U.S. market.

Since I doubt this alone would stop Iran from its nuclear ambitions I would have no compunctions about ordering a pre-emptive strike if I thought it necessary. I would involve no other nation, since some of them have already signaled their refusal to cooperate (UK, Turkey) and others might be untrustworthy or demand a high price for their assistance.

Aside from having our Navy sink anything Iranian that floated and destroying Iran’s ports, I would take out Iran’s missile sites (many of which are aimed at the oil facilities of the GCE countries) and anything suspected of being a nuclear facility, with particular attention being paid to taking out supporting infrastructure so that surviving machinery like centrifuges couldn’t simply be moved and hidden. I would either completely destroy Iran’s refineries and pipeline networks for oil and natural gas or have an assault ship like the USS Boxer land Marines to invade and hold Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil terminus in the Persian Gulf. This would allow us to control Iran’s oil flow, should we care to. If we left Kharg Island, I would destroy the facilities beyond repair as well as Iran’s oil fields and infrastructure. That would take care of any future misuse of Iran’s oil money.

Except for Kharg Island, I would not have any U.S. troops invade, nor would I involve America in any nation building. I would make a point of leaving a devastated Iran as a warning to others.

Such an attack would have been infinitely simpler and less destructive if it had been done some years ago, and a strong stance at the very beginning back in 1979 might have made the whole thing unnecessary. But given the reality of today that’s what it will take.

If this strikes you as somewhat Roman, I can only reply, Iran Delenda Est.

Virginia Right!: A nuclear armed Iran is clearly a problem from the viewpoint of Israel. It is also a problem for the stability of the entire Middle East. Most of us who are pro Israel understand that.

However, for those who are anti oil, it may be the perfect solution to their goal. Massive instability in the region would necessarily cause the price of oil to skyrocket even more than it has already. And since most of those who seek political power through the control of energy want to drive the prices up to push the world off of oil, this is a quick means to that end.

Many of these same people also share the disillusion that eliminating, or at least neutering Israel will bring stability to the Middle East. That is not to say that they are all in favor of the extermination of Israel, though some would be OK with that, just that some are gullible enough to believe that Israel and Jews are the root cause of conflict in the region.

With nuclear weapons aimed at Israel, world leaders would no longer be asked to reign in the rogue state, relieving people like Barack Obama from the responsibility and pressure to protect Israel – a task he is, at best, ambivalent about doing. And at worst, well, let’s just say Obama’s education in his formative years should be alarming to friends of Israel.

How I would deal with the problem if a nuclear armed Iran is simple. Israel has the right to protect herself and we have a responsibility to allow her to do just that. The US should use their veto power in the UN Security Council to keep the rest of the world from deciding Israel’s fate. Israel is an ally and deserves the opportunity to make those decisions and has the right to self protection. And if a preemptive strike is the decision, so be it.

A North Korea-like rogue nation in the Middle East is the last thing the world needs. It is impossible to control North Korea. And they are a poor state. Imagine the same dynamic with an oil rich nation like Iran with the ability to sabre rattle and threaten with no possibility of repercussions.

And how long will it be until every unstable Theocracy in the Middle East has a nuclear weapon if we allow Iran to obtain – and ultimately proliferate – such weapons. It is doubtful that a nuclear Iran can be controlled or even contained. I shudder to think about the consequences of a nuclear Hamas.

The Glittering Eye: Iran’s getting the Bomb would present a situation very different from any of the other countries with nuclear weapons. In the case of first countries with nuclear weapons (United States, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France) none of those countries had denied it was developing nuclear weapons.

The next cohort of nuclear powers (India, China) developed their nuclear weapons as deterrents against the other. Neither of them denied their development programs. Next in line, Pakistan, developed its nuclear weapons under very similar circumstances.

Iran’s situation would be much more like that of North Korea. North Korea’s development program was a de facto secret (as practically everything else going on in the country is) and was discovered pretty much by accident. North Korea never denied its development program but it hadn’t advertised it, either.

Israel is believed to have nuclear weapons but we don’t know for sure the size of its nuclear arsenal, if any. Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. To the best of my knowledge it has never denied having nuclear weapons.

A couple of notable differences between North Korea and Iran: Iran doesn’t have a patron of the sort that China is for North Korea, Iran can afford to produce a substantial arsenal of weapons, and Iran openly supports terrorists.

An Iranian nuclear weapon would almost certainly start a nuclear arms race in the very volatile Middle East. I don’t think that’s a situation that we can tolerate.

Consequently, a nuclear-armed Iran would

– be untrustworthy since it had developed its nuclear weapons while repeatedly denying it was doing so
– be capable of producing a substantial arsenal
– present a threat of transferring nuclear weapons to terrorists
– threaten its neighbors (including Russia and China) and us

Ideally with the cooperation of Russia and China who are, after all, more threatened by Iran than we are but without it if necessary, we should avoid the bluster that has characterized past statements by the last two administrations on the subject and merely say that if Iran tests, uses, conveys, or transfers the technology for a nuclear weapon or threatens us or anybody else with nuclear weapons, we’ll consider it an act of war and respond in such a way as to end the threat, whatever that may require.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it. And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?


Author: Admin

Related Articles

7 thoughts on “Forum: Do you consider a nuclear armed Iran a problem? If so, how would you deal with it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *