Subject: Iran
Dec 18th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Another e-mail from the president-elect’s inbox
“THE toughest decision you have to make about Iran is whether you are willing in the final resort to attack its nuclear facilities to stop it getting a bomb. Everything else flows from that call.
John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be an Iran with a bomb. If diplomacy fails, you do have a military option: bombing the uranium-enrichment facility in Natanz and other plants would set back Iran’s programme a year or three and put the mullahs on notice to expect more if they tried again. But if we attack we cannot rule out a big response: missiles on Israel, terror attacks on our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, strikes on oil shipments through the Gulf. Of course, we can respond to their response. But as a president elected on a peace ticket you would need all this like a hole in the head.
Besides, the McCain dictum is debatable. What’s Iran going to do with its bomb? If it drops it on Israel it’s committing suicide. Mutual assured destruction deterred the Soviets, didn’t it? True, a nuclear Iran will be a bolder Iran, tempted to push even harder against our interests in Iraq, the Gulf, Lebanon and Palestine. But we have ways to push back. We could, for instance, extend our nuclear umbrella beyond Israel to our Arab friends.
If you decide it’s better to let Iran get its bomb than to risk bombing it, we don’t have to tell anybody for a bit. Pretending to keep a military threat on the table while trying to talk or bribe Iran out of going nuclear is not a bad policy. But be under no illusion: it’s the policy the previous administration tried too, with zero results. You’ve promised bigger carrots and threatened bigger sticks. But President Bush and the Europeans tried a good-cop, bad-cop routine and Iran ran circles round them both. To get the Russians behind tougher sanctions you’ll have to give them something big, like dropping the idea of missile defence for Europe.
One new idea you bring to the table is the offer of direct talks. Some of our people think there’s a “grand bargain” to be had with the mullahs. (Others, though, reckon they want to get their bomb first, and the bargain later.)
It might work; but there’s not much time. Within a couple of months of your inauguration Iran could have enough low-enriched uranium for one bomb, once the stuff has been boosted (this could take less than another two months) to weapons-grade. We don’t know how close Iran would then be to a working device, but its chances of getting a bomb in the first half of your first term are high. In all likelihood, you will have to decide—bomb or deter—quite soon.
Oh, and the Israelis know all this as well. We need to warn them again not to go it alone in the hope of dragging us in to finish the job. If diplomacy fails and you decide that the military option is in the end the lesser evil, at least let it be our decision, not theirs.”
No comments:
Post a Comment