Cooler heads prevail in the final year of the Bush administration
I breathed a sigh of relief when I heard the news released this weekend that last year President Bush had denied a request from Israel to provide bunker buster bombs, refueling equipment, and Iraq overflight privileges for a planned attack on the Iranian nuclear enrichment facility at Natanz. During the past several years there have been many who had predicted that a targeted American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was inevitable. I must admit, I remained skeptical about the Bush administration’s willingness to blunder into yet another conflict considering that it was already dealing with two wars. Although I had always believed that the Bush administration had made a tremendous mistake in its decision to launch an invasion into Iraq back in 2003, I also felt/hoped that lessons had been learned from that experience. Moreover, most experts seemed to indicate that the costs related to an attack on Iran greatly outweighed any potential benefits. Surely there were some neocons in the Bush administration who still felt that a strike by Israel was the right choice. Thankfully, this time, cooler heads prevailed. Apparently plans for an attack on Iran never went beyond contingency planning.
I was interested by the fact that the Bush administration did use “alternative” methods to further stall the Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Fortunately, these “alternative” methods didn’t involve waterboarding or rendition! (yes, it’s a sad day when this is what automatically comes to mind) What they did do was sabotage the electronic components of the equipment being imported into Iran for uranium enrichment. Although this creative approach wouldn’t stop the development process, it would likely slow it down, which, in the end, is basically all a direct attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would have done anyhow. As long as US forces were not entering Iranian territory to carry out their activities, I see little problem with this “cloak and dagger” approach in lieu of an actual attack on Iranian facilities.
Certainly a direct attack on a nuclear facility was a foolish option, as most analysts agreed. Iran could have retaliated against US troops in Iraq and such an attacked risked igniting a regional Middle East war. These costs were high in comparison to the potential benefits, that were downgraded further by the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that questioned if Iran was even continuing its program to develop a nuclear weapon. Moreover, the threat from an Iranian nuclear weapon is diminished by the understanding that a nuclear strike by Iran would result in its massive retaliation by Israel or the United States.
So, if both remedies just serve to slow down an inevitable process, are we doomed to face a nuclear armed Iran? Perhaps. However, the direct engagement proposed by the incoming administration has a chance of changing the calculation on both sides. It’s success certainly is far from guaranteed. But, if our other options just slow down an inevitable process, seems to me that it’s worth a shot. It may require security guarantees for Iran. We might be stuck with a policy of containment. Compared with the other options, this doesn’t seem all that bad. What is not useful, however, are continuous threats to keep the military option on the table. Such talk, even if it is accurate, does nothing to allay Iranian fears of a US invasion and further motivates Iran to pursue nuclear weapons as the only way of preventing such an invasion.
So, yes, i relieved to hear that the Bush administration had decided to go with more creative tactics. However, I also believe that, it’s now time for real engagement.
Related posts: