Iran's enriched uranium and the possibility of preventive war
Well, it was only a matter of time, as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago. If you missed it, Iran has announced that it has "succeeded in enriching uranium to new levels," according to The Washington Post.
Is this a crisis? Yes. We simply cannot accept a nuclear Iran and, obviously, Iran is well on its way to becoming a nuclear state. So what to do? Reports suggest that the Bush Administration is preparing for war and that a plan to use nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear facilities is on the table. Our guest blogger J. Kingston Pierce, responding to a Seymour Hersh piece in The New Yorker, recently addressed those reports here. At Slate, one of our favourites, Fred Kaplan, argues that we are probably not going to use nuclear weapons against Iran, that, in fact, there may be any number of reasons why the nuclear option is on the table. Eric Alterman, contra Kaplan, thinks that it's all quite possible.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Iran has apparently succeeded in enriching uranium to 3.5 percent, "an amount consistent with a fuel cycle and far below the level needed to produce a nuclear weapon". This is an improvement, from Iran's perspective, but there's still a long way to go: "Iran had previously enriched uranium to a level of about 2 percent, using a smaller cascade, and separately enriched uranium to about 15 percent during laser experiments in 2002. Bomb-grade uranium must be enriched to a level of well over 80 percent."
This development is indeed "a significant breakthrough in Iran's nuclear program," and we do need to take it seriously. But it's imperative, I think, that we roll back the incendiary rhetoric and consider what other options should be on the table. I would not and do not rule out a military strike, or perhaps even a more significant military campaign, but the use of military force should be the last resort, not the first -- and certainly not in this case, given what repercussions a military strike could have.
As Kaplan argues: "Pre-emptive war -- attacking a country to keep it from attacking us or an ally -- is sometimes justifiable. Preventive war -- attacking a country to keep it from developing a capability to attack an ally sometime in the future -- almost never is." We need to be extremely careful not to cross the line from the former to the latter. Think how a U.S.-led strike would play throughout the Muslim world. What would happen in Iraq? How would al Qaeda respond? Those two questions alone should give us pause to consider other, non-military options.
Thankfully, there is still time. Perhaps not much, but having even a little time is better than having none at all.
Is this a crisis? Yes. We simply cannot accept a nuclear Iran and, obviously, Iran is well on its way to becoming a nuclear state. So what to do? Reports suggest that the Bush Administration is preparing for war and that a plan to use nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear facilities is on the table. Our guest blogger J. Kingston Pierce, responding to a Seymour Hersh piece in The New Yorker, recently addressed those reports here. At Slate, one of our favourites, Fred Kaplan, argues that we are probably not going to use nuclear weapons against Iran, that, in fact, there may be any number of reasons why the nuclear option is on the table. Eric Alterman, contra Kaplan, thinks that it's all quite possible.
But let's not get ahead of ourselves. Iran has apparently succeeded in enriching uranium to 3.5 percent, "an amount consistent with a fuel cycle and far below the level needed to produce a nuclear weapon". This is an improvement, from Iran's perspective, but there's still a long way to go: "Iran had previously enriched uranium to a level of about 2 percent, using a smaller cascade, and separately enriched uranium to about 15 percent during laser experiments in 2002. Bomb-grade uranium must be enriched to a level of well over 80 percent."
This development is indeed "a significant breakthrough in Iran's nuclear program," and we do need to take it seriously. But it's imperative, I think, that we roll back the incendiary rhetoric and consider what other options should be on the table. I would not and do not rule out a military strike, or perhaps even a more significant military campaign, but the use of military force should be the last resort, not the first -- and certainly not in this case, given what repercussions a military strike could have.
As Kaplan argues: "Pre-emptive war -- attacking a country to keep it from attacking us or an ally -- is sometimes justifiable. Preventive war -- attacking a country to keep it from developing a capability to attack an ally sometime in the future -- almost never is." We need to be extremely careful not to cross the line from the former to the latter. Think how a U.S.-led strike would play throughout the Muslim world. What would happen in Iraq? How would al Qaeda respond? Those two questions alone should give us pause to consider other, non-military options.
Thankfully, there is still time. Perhaps not much, but having even a little time is better than having none at all.
posted by Michael J.W. Stickings at
8:04 AM
3 Comments:
Excellent analysis, Michael. At some point, the luxury of time will evaporate, leaving the US, Europe and Israel with tough decisions. Ironically, the Administration's overselling of preemption in Iraq has greatly benefited Iran, as has Iraq fatigue. Iran's medium range missle capability shifts the risk, at least for the foreseeable future, to Israel and Europe. Europe will shift it to Israel (and the US). The quandry for US Jeffersonian isolationists is measuring our obligations to Israel. The '08 presidential candidates aren't likely to turn their backs on our ally but won't want to beat the drums of war. The beneficiary of all of this, of course, is Iran- who will play delay and deception much like North Korea. Strange times indeed.
By
cakreiz, at 1:34 PM
Agree with the above comment. Iraq destroyed Bush's credibility and makes it much more difficult to gain an international consensus on Iran. But Iran is truly dangerous, no so much from having the bomb itself, as from what that will do to the regional balance of power. It's likely to spur an arms race, especially if Ahmadinejad (did I spell it right?) keeps making nutty comments. Even Arab neighbors are likely to be concerned about having Iran as a nuclear neighbor.
I have no confidence in the Bush Administration to make the right decision. However, while I don't think that an actual attack makes sense, I am not particularly disturbed by the Administration floating rumors about it. As I see it, this is a logical carrot/stick approach, especially given that the Russians and Chinese seem unwilling to take any definitive action. Diplomacy and force are not diametrically opposed alternatives in the real world; they are two sides of the same coin. I think this is primarily a form of psychological warfare.
As for Israel, I don't take the threat that seriously. Nukes fly in two directions and Iran knows that Israel most likely has a lot more for the foreseeable future than does Iran.
In my opinion, the danger is much more in the effect an Iranian bomb and increases in Iranian power projection capability--which they seem to be seeking--will have on the regional balance of power. If Iran's neighbors decide to start building up, it could get really ugly and we could have even more nuclear powers. Not to mention the potential for terrorists to get ahold of the nuke.
However, it seems to me that we don't need to be in that much of a rush. It seems unlikely that Iran is going to have a bomb that soon.
By
Anonymous, at 3:23 PM
I'm less sanguine, marc, that Iran won't use a nuke against Israel if it obtains one. We don't have any real world experience with 'fundamentalist, ancient Islamic cults seeking nuclear arms', as Cicero recently put it. Nor has there been a big gap between Iran's words and deeds (a frightening thought). On our end, I agree that there is no need for immediate action. The ill-fated Iraq WMD scare makes it unlikely that this will happen. We need to utilize the time that we have to apply diplomatic and economic pressure- not an Administration strong suit.
By
cakreiz, at 4:11 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home