Time For The "Nuclear Option"

The US and assorted other civilized states have been making noises and ugly faces for some years now over the Iranian efforts to attain nuclear weapons.  Diplomatic and economic sanctions have been employed.  So have more robust measures ranging from the more or less covert such as computer viruses to the rather obvious, the shooting of nuclear researchers.

Th net result has been the continued and accelerating Iranian quest for the bomb.

Years ago, the notion of Iranian science or work in advanced technology would have been seen quite properly as an oxymoron.  During the early days of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, science and technology were downgraded severely as a matter of theologically predicated policy.  It was only years later, years marked by the stalemated bloodletting of the Iran-Iraq War, that the mullahs and ayatollahs changed their religious tune.  Only after the near defeat at the hands of the technologically superior Iraq convinced the Supreme Guardian of the Revolution that the deity did, after all, will Iran to have sufficient and sufficiently advanced weapons to protect the revolution.

Science and technology came back to the front and center of Iranian governmental life in the late Eighties and beyond.  Oil money poured into new and reinvigorated institutes and university departments.  Chief among these were those entities which dealt with nuclear research and development as well as key support systems of nuclear weapons including but not limited to ballistic and guided missiles.

The Iranians deserve great credit for accomplishing much over the next two decades.  In both nuclear and missile development, they were very much on their own.  Only South Africa was as internationally isolated during its nuclear development period--and even then the Pretoria regime received some assistance from Israel including supplies of tritium necessary for boosted fission as well as fusion bombs.  Other than some early model centrifuges from A.Q Khan's ring in Pakistan, the Iranians pulled themselves up by their own fission bootstraps.

The monolithic Western governmental opposition linked with the earlier conviction that only a nuclear capacity would assure Iranian survival in a future war to enhance greatly the firm belief that the possession of nuclear weapons was an existential matter.  The existential foundation of the nuclear option was reinforced by Tehran's observation of how the US treated the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.  The Islamabad Bad Boys were  handled with gentility and respect by Washington for one simple reason--Pakistan had the bomb.

This meant that should Iran match Pakistan's accomplishment, the result would be elevated status on both the global and regional stages.  Not only would the "Mahdi Bomb" assure Iran's survival as an Islamic theocracy, it would propel the country to the status of regional hegemon and global actor of real potency.  These were two very fine reasons to bear heavy burdens and make great sacrifices for the years it would take to develop a credible nuclear capacity.

There is no doubt but the many sanctions regimes imposed, particularly those of recent origin focusing on shipping and insurance, have place very heavy loads on the Iranian economy.  There is no doubt but the sanctions taken in total have forced the Iranian government and people to make sacrifices over and above those required by the inefficient and repressive nature of the government.

Most importantly, there is no reason to conclude that the sanctions and diplomatic pressures have modified Iranian behavior--other than to make the mullahs and their frontmen more intransigent, more creative in sanction evasion, and more committed to acquiring the bomb no matter what the price.

Not to put too fine a point on the matter, in the battle of political wills between the US led West and Iran, it is the latter which is winning.  In this context, the Iranians have introduced a form of game changer--a new generation of improved centrifuges which will reduce greatly the time needed to turn twenty percent enriched uranium into weapons grade stuff.  Further, they have acted in a prudential manner, placing the new fast-spinners in deep dug bunkers.

Now ninety plus senators have urged the immediate introduction of a game changer from the American perspective.  In a letter to the president, this overwhelming majority of the senate have demanded the imposition of sanctions against the Iranian central bank, the bank created some fifty years ago to act as the interface between the consumers of Iranian oil and the Tehran government.  This move, described as the "nuclear option," would, if enforced, prevent the clearing of payments to Iran from all purchasers of oil.

For its part, the government of Iran has stated this move would constitute "an act of war."

While not being an armed action, the isolation of the Iranian Bank Markazi would be the equivalent in effect of the US freezing of all Japanese assets in the summer of 1941.  That action, the culmination of a long campaign of escalating economic pressures, prevented Japan from acquiring oil and other strategic materials from the US.  This gave the government of Imperial Japan the choice of a humiliating surrender to American political dictates or war.

As you know, the Japanese chose the second alternative.  The decision makers believed that the fortunes of war might favor Japan given other constraints operating on the US including the ongoing Great Depression and a preoccupation with Nazi Germany.

It would not be irrational for Tehran to make the same choice today or into the near future.  The US is in the throes of a severe economic challenge including possibly the second of a double dip recession.  It is still engaged in an unpopular and seemingly inconclusive war in Afghanistan.  The current administration is perceived as both irresolute and feckless.

The senators hint at the possibility of legislation compelling the imposition of the ultimate sanction should the president decide not to use the authority he already has to make the move.  This make the challenge both direct and definitely non-trivial.  As the choice is both clear and stark, it will be difficult for Mr Obama to "lead from behind" or equivocate.  And, it is debatable whether or not he has the political capital necessary to stare the senators down.

Were the Iranians to choose war, now is the least-worst time for us to fight it.  Looking ahead, there is no doubt but the American military will be significantly weaker a year or two hence.  The budget battles assure the Pentagon will take a heavy hit.  In this context is is important to recall that people close to the Oval have intimated the president would be happy to see the military budget at or below fifteen percent of total expenditures.  This would be a funding level not seen since the years immediately preceding Pearl Harbor.

We forget how unready the US was for World War II.  We forget how difficult it was to mobilize our industrial resources and manpower for that war. Perhaps most important, we overlook the fact that playing the sort of catch-up now that we did so well seventy years ago is quite impossible.  It is no longer feasible or even possible to undertake the kind of forced draft military build-up today which we did between 1941 and 1944.  The radical changes in military technology have been responsible for this ground truth as they are for the companion reality that a draftee based armed force is not possible.

Right now or in the next few months, the US is quite capable of decisively defeating Iran should the latter be so ill-advised as to treat our imposition of the "nuclear option" as a literal act of war.  Further, it is a war which would be widely supported by We the People--provided only that it was fought as a retaliatory and punitive action without any follow-on occupation and rebuilding of the place.

President Obama is long overdue in making a defecate or get off the pot decision about Iran and its search for the bomb.  We have played the escalating sanction game long enough and have had more than sufficient opportunity to have observed the counterproductive results.  Diplomacy of the talk sort has also run its course without beneficial results.

The senatorial letter is forcing a final decision.  Either we have to admit that we can live and the world can live with a nuclear capable Iran and all that implies or we have to take the final, decisive act.  The president would be best off acting on his current authority so he will look as if he were actually a "decider guy" as George W. used to put it.  Better to look as if you are acting of your own volition than to be seen as being frog marched by the senate.

Should Iran respond with war-like acts either directly or through surrogates, by overt military actions or through terrorism, let it be.  As George W. memorably put the matter, "Bring it on!"