In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal last Thursday, John Bolton argues that Israel must strike Iran’s nuclear program now to avoid a more dire situation in the future. He rightly states “central to any Israeli decision is Iran’s possible response” and outlines six potential Iranian responses used as arguments against an immediate attack:
1) Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz
2) Iran cuts its own oil exports to raise world prices
3) Iran attacks U.S. forces in Iraq an Afghanistan
4) Iran increases support for global terrorism
5) Iran launches missile attacks on Israel
6) Iran unleashes Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel
These arguments he then attempts to refute.
His claims are of questionable merit. Far more importantly, though, he glances over or ignores broader, more significant considerations.
Most notably, Bolton’s piece presumes an Israeli attack would successfully terminate the Iranian nuclear program. While not impossible, an airstrike faces considerable difficulties including airspace issues, the hardening and mobility of Iranian facilities, uncertainty of the geographic positions of all of Iranian facilities, and Iranian air defenses.
Moreover, it is too early to give up on negotiations. Even with the reelection of Ahmadinejad, the Obama Administration’s diplomatic approach may produce positive results overtime.
Finally, Bolton casually brushes aside the inevitable regional instability that would result from an Israeli strike and the subsequent Iranian response:
Many argue that Israeli military action will cause Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs’ regime and plunge the region into political chaos. To the contrary, a strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could well turn Iran’s diverse population against an oppresive regime.
Given Iran’s determination to pursue nuclear capabilities, the leadership and public’s dislike of Israel, and its relative military strength, Iranians would most likely rally around the leadership and a devastating and swift military response. A recent poll conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow: The Center for Public Opinion and the New America Foundation found that “62 percent of Iranians oppose any peace treaty recognizing the State of Israel and favor all Muslims continuing to fight until there is no State of Israel in the Middle East”. The same poll found that 52 percent of Iranians want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Military conflict would inevitably lead to significant regional instability.
Whether or not a military strike on Iran’s nuclear program is a sound option, Bolton and the other advocates of this response need to formulate a stronger argument for it and address some more serious objections to an Israeli attack.
Greg is dead-on. It's
Greg is dead-on. It’s inconceivable that any amount of public diplomacy of any kind is going to assuage an Israeli attack on Iran. Bolton cannot possibly believe that.
Also, let’s not also forget what happened after Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1991, ironically (at least according to some sources) with a bit of help from Iran. The effect was that Iraq just pushed the program further underground and gave it a lot more money. We’ve been down this road before; the idea of a military strike against nuclear facilities is a problem-maker masquerading as a solution.
Bolton acknowledged that this is an “unattractive” option, but argued that not doing it is even worse. This is obviously a false choice. We need to stop thinking about this as a problem that can be solved with a silver bullet (or missile for that matter). Bomb or no bomb, Iran’s nuclear program has too much money and political capital behind it to be defused overnight. It will need to be redirected onto a bath where it is truly, verifiably only for peaceful purposes. This is probably never going to be a fun or heartening exercise, but it is our best option.
I think you're quite
I think you’re quite right that there’s no chance that a military strike against nuclear facilities would produce weaken support for the Iranian regime. It would probably be just what the government was looking for in terms of a way to overcome current protests.
I’m a fan of public diplomacy, but I have no idea what kind of campaign would convince the Iranian people to be happy we struck at their nuclear facilities. If such a campaign were possible, why not just launch it now in order to greatly reduce the 52% support for nuclear weapons. That would presumably strengthen our bargaining position by reducing the nationalist benefits of pursuing the weapons.