Questions About a Nuclear-Tipped Iran

by Charles

In thinking about an Iran with enriched uranium and atomic bombs in the near future, all sorts of questions have bubbled to the surface.  The answers are my best educated guesses.  If you have different answers, tell my why. I’m just trying to mentally work this through.  In no particular order:

What are the risks of an Iran with nuclear weapons?
I don’t believe Iran would be a direct threat to the United States. If they ever attempted such a thing, there would be mutually assured destruction, except Iran would get the shorter end of the bargain.

Could Iran bomb or threaten to bomb its neighbors?
Not likely since Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are allied with the U.S. What about Turkmenistan, Armenia and Azerbaijan? Doubtful, since those are former Soviet states and it is likely that Russia would not take kindly to such aggression.  Also, Iran has a working relationship with Russia, and it would not be in their interests to be on Russia’s bad side. Pakistan? Nope, since messing with Musharraf would be a MAD scenario for the mullahs.

Could Iran bomb or threaten to bomb Israel?
The mullahs would rather have Israel wiped off the map, but if such a thing were attempted or threatened to be attempted by the Iranians, the United States--as Israel’s ally--would assure or threaten to assure Tehran’s destruction.

Could Iran give a nuke or two to terrorists?
Possibly, but not likely. Iran gives Hezbollah around $100 million a year, and a nuclear weapon could be in Hezbollah’s Ramadan stocking at some future date. Hezbollah shares the same visions as Ahmadinehad in terms of wiping Israel out of existence (or exporting it to Europe).  But does that mean it would happen? I don’t think so.  If Tel Aviv were vaporized under a mushroom cloud, once it’s verified that the nuke (or nukes) came from Iran, Tehran and its military installations would be turned into really big radioactive parking lots by the United States. If we didn’t, then we wouldn’t be much of an ally and our word wouldn’t mean all that much.

Could they give a nuke or two to al Qaeda?
Yes, but as with the previous scenario, Iran would end up being part of the newly enlarged Persian Gulf and/or Caspian Sea if al Qaeda explodes an atomic weapon. But because we are war with al Qaeda, it is an unacceptable risk that al Qaeda gain possession of any nuclear bombs. If they have them, the risk is too great that they would use them.

What is the likelihood that Iran would give or sell a nuke or two to al Qaeda?
Hard to know. The 9/11 Commission concluded that there are links between Iran and al Qaeda:

• There is an Iranian link with the Khobar Towers bombing.
• Al Qaeda members have gone to Iran for training in explosives.
• Iranians aided the transit of al Qaeda members.

And so forth. There are fundamental religious differences between Sunni al Qaeda members and Shiite Iranians, but they are not above working together when their interests intersect. But the mullahs would be taking an enormous risk in giving al Qaeda that much firepower. There are several ways in which blowback could occur against the Guardian Council, all of which could significantly curtail their political power, not to mention their lives.

Could Iran give a nuke or two to other sovereign nations?
That’s what really worries me. Although there are religious differences, Iran is close to Syria, and Syria is a gracious host to Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. According to this source, Syria is Iran’s principal ally in the Middle East. A nuclear Syria would drastically alter the balance of power, not just in the region but on the world stage. Do we really want a dork like Bashar Assad having a nuclear bomb? And if Syria gets a nuclear bomb, how could that hurt Iran? I don’t see much downside. What can we really do after the transfer has already occurred? Not much, as far as I can see. We could launch strikes at their bomb-related facilities, but that would be tantamount to shutting the barn door after the horses have already escaped.

And it’s not just Syria. There is a certain communist megalomaniac in South America who has recently strengthened ties with Iran. The connection:

• Iran has broken the seals and is resuming nuclear fuel "research"
• Ahmedinejad continues to question the Holocaust and is making other nonsensical noises about Israel;
• Venezuela and Iran have agreed to explore a joint shipbuilding operation.
• Hugo Chavez has claimed that the "descendants of those who crucified Christ" (that would be Jews for those of you scoring at home) have taken ownership of the riches of the world.

It would be a major shift in the balance of South American power if Chavez were to get his mitts on a nuclear bomb or two. It wouldn’t be Cuban Missile Crisis II, but it would be a crisis.

Other nations getting atomic bombs from Iran would likely have similar unpleasant effects.  So, the fundamental question is this:

Does the United States accept a nuclear Iran or not?

If we do, how do we proceed?
Pretty much how we’re going, which is talking tough but doing next to nothing. The EU3 is a joke and everybody knows it because they’re all carrot and no stick. Our best course, then, would be to make Iran's policy more costly, which means going to the UN Security Council and pushing for sanctions.  It looks like we're ready to do just that.  But that means getting Russia and China on board, which is a hard slog. Russia seems amenable, but China is going to want something in return and it may cost us plenty. The question, then, is how far do we go to buy off China in order to get sanctions?  And by the bye, sanctions won't likely do us much good or Iran much bad.  We shouldn't go too far with China, in my view, because it's not smart to lose face or to pay full retail with the Chinese.  But when it boils down to an Iran with an atomic bomb, we are faced with serious risks. The situation is different with North Korea because they're isolated and they're heavily reliant on China. Iran is independent, not nearly as isolated and its leadership is increasingly more fruit loopy.

What happens if we accept a nuclear Iran but Israel does not?
The situation is a little different than Osirak in the 1980s because Iran’s facilities are spread out and the political situation in the Middle East is more dicey today than 20 years ago. Back then, there was a Cold War and the world was paying less attention. A military attack by Israel would strain their armed service capabilities, and they would likely face even more unmitigated hate from even more millions of Arabs and Muslims. Increased retaliatory strikes by terrorists against Israel would be a given, and relations with the Palestinian Authority could rupture for years to come.

If we don’t accept a nuclear Iran, how do we proceed?
First, we pull the plug on EU3 and stop wasting everybody’s time. We pursue UN Security Council sanctions and we continue talking tough, but those are side dishes. If we’re serious about non-proliferation, we take the unprecedented move of negotiating directly with the mullahs. If a trust-but-verify agreement is reached, fine. If not, then there are three options at the least:

• Change course and accept a nuclear Iran.
• Invasion.
• Massive series of precision strikes, done nearly simultaneously.

Also during this process, we can take steps to encourage democratic reform in Iran. If the mullahs see a public groundswell working against them, they may think twice about pursuing their uranium enrichment program. Given our strained military personnel situation, invasion may be an option but, for all practical purposes, it’s nigh off the table. The only real viable military option is a massive coordinated precision strike. The question, then, is...

Are the risks of taking out their nuclear facilities less than the risks of an Iran with nuclear weapons?
I think so, but I’m not really sure. If drastic action is to be taken, we need to know what those risks really are.

What else am I missing?
Lots of things, I'm sure.

• Is Bush capable of executing a major military strike?  I think so, but needs a career-best performance.
• Do we need Congressional authorization? I'm pretty sure we do.
• How is that going to come about? Probably in a highly partisan fashion.
• Is our intelligence good enough, both in finding and confirming the existence of atomic bomb related installations?  Big question.
• If we do choose a major military strike, do we also take out the Guardian Council, Ahmadinejad and their command-and-control elements? I believe we should, because the real threats are the decision-makers who made this come about.
• How much consultation with allies will it take? A helluva lot, and I expect a lot of dissent.
• Can we foment an Iranian revolution? Given the hammerlock the mullahs have on their subjects, I doubt it.

Etc.

Update:  Last August, the Washington Post reported the following:

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

Dr. Jeffrey Lewis is in general agreement in Part I of his three-part series.  The WA Post piece also mentioned that U.S. intelligence knows "disturbingly little" about Iran and North Korea.  Because we blew it so badly on Iraq, the intelligence for Iran will be need to airtight before we get serious about military options.  In the meantime, applying pressure via UN sanctions and gathering intelligence look like the next steps.

Comments

[lily]

I suppose I should save this for the hating on blog, but I can't control myself...the suggestion that we should attrack Iran is, by the very arguments put forth by Charles and Sebastian, conmpletely stupid from a foreign policy point of view and immoral.

On the previous Iran thread, in the comments, in response to my question about the longterm effects of an airstrike, Sebastian said that Iran would probably get nukes anyway sooner or later.
On this thread Charles ennumerates a whole list of bad outcomes from a nuclear Iran which he DOESN'T think likely--and then puts forth the preposterous notion that they might collarorate with Venezuela in some manner.
Not one reason for airstrikes given. So why do it?
Because it would feel good to smite the evil enemy?
The spread of nuclear weapons or the materials for making weapons is a serious problem that a responisble administration would address through a reality based (not ideological) bi-partisan, farsighted policy. Instead what we have here is another outbreak of fearmongering, timed to effect our elections.
For example, what about Chechyna? Chechyna (am I spelling it right?) has become prime recruiting ground for AL Quaida for the same reasons Afganistan was-- a traumatized, militarized population, a turn to extreme religion linked to nationalism, the lack of any other kind of government. All this within the boundaries of Russia, a nation notorious for organized crime, corruption, and the inability to organize anything sensibly. If Al Quaida gets the makings of a bomb it is a great deal more likey to happen by way of black market leakage to rebels in Chechyna.
We don't need airstrikes against anybody. We do need to be focused on the illegal market in nuke material, the governments that are using the market or failing to control it (Pakistan), and the the growing link in many countries between their sense of nationalism, their ambitions for development, and their desire to get nuclear power. A big picture policy which includes diplomacy and law enforcement. Not show-off postering to make the base feel macho.
The Republican party has a long history of picking a simple, concrete enemy to use to polarize and manipulate domestic politics: the Red Scare of the WWI era, the McCarthy period, gay people, Saddam. The danger of attack from a homemade or real nuke from a gang or a nation taken over by a terrorist gang is real. To bad the response from the right is just more fearmongering without any real policy.

[dmbeaster]

The suitcase nuke thing is definitely an overblown threat. They are difficult to make and not worth the trouble (cost/benefit ratio) compared to all sorts of other weapons.

They are hard to make -- I would imagine any Iranian uranium bomb would be bulky. But the suitcase bomb would be the ultimate terrorist weapon.

Overall, a worthwhile post (except for the useless obsession about Chavez).

I recommend reading this month's Atlantic Monthly for its excellent article regarding nuclear proliferation. Short story -- its becoming almost impossible to stop, and the political will is not there partly because of the inherent contradiction in the policy that allows only some to have access to the ultimate equalizer weapon. The most usefull use of nukes is as a deterrent weapon against those more powerful. Most interesting fact from article (among many) --- Iraq's program escaped detection partly because it was relying on calutron technology (i.e., US method for uranium enrichment for Manhattan Project) that was deemed so crude that it was declassified decades ago. That also meant that the procurement of parts for the program went unnoticed since the technology was not listed as sensitive.

[Gary Farber]

Just as a drive-by (no! Will not be sucked in! Must be strong!), and offered purely as data, and not in support of anything else, not in support of any specific argument, or point of view (I hope we're clear on that; thanks), these statements by President Ahmadinejad, suggesting a possible apocalyptic viewpoint (not that it matters so much what he thinks, as rather what Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei thinks).

(And purely for those fascinated by the subject of me, me, ME!, an insight into an element of my complicated political views; I'm sure this will profoundly change everyone's lives.)

[john miller]

Gary, pleased get sucked in.

After all, you are an effing national treasure.

[Gary Farber]

"Gary, pleased get sucked in."

I'm sorry, but Battlestar Galactica 2.0 disks one and two just arrived from Netflix, finally, a short time ago, so I have things that are more fracking important to do.

Besides, while I will be back for chat and making a fool of myself from time to time, I really need to resist my impulses to, as I tend to approach most things, over-do it here.

But, another day, another droplet of my utterly essential deeply insightful dry wit.

Request most appreciated, however. (And I resisted my natural impulse to reply with a double-entendre; yay, me!)

I'm very glad Hilzoy is posting and well and good and all, apparently.

Here's my query, though: a) can the present Iranian leadership be trusted to act as prudently as the Soviet leadership did with the bomb (said prudence including, recall, Krushchev thinking it was a grand idea to put nuclear missiles in a Cuba which Castro then demanded he fire off during the Crisis [Kruschchev, fortunately, only being reckless, and not insane, refused, under then-extant circumstances]); and b) what exactly should policy be, specifically, not just meaningless cant words such as "diplomacy," "multilateral approaches," "reality based (not ideological) bi-partisan, farsighted policy," or "reality based (not ideological) bi-partisan, farsighted policy," which is precisely as content-free and meaningful as saying you're for "waa waa waa waa waa, goodness, and a pony."

What exactly should be done about Iran? What should we do, rather than what should we not do? Not doing is easy. Doing is hard.

Keeping in mind that the costs of inaction can always possible be as great as or greater than the costs of action in any given circumstance.

[Gary Farber]

Sigh. Second example of meaningless non-policy should have been "A big picture policy which includes diplomacy and law enforcement."

And "possibly be as great," not
"possible."

[hilzoy]

Gary: Yay! You're back!

[hilzoy]

And Gary: it must be in your honor that the comments screwed themselves up earlier today. (There are three that have transported themselves to the future, so have been showing up as the newest comments for quite some time.) I have tried to fix it, but no luck.

[Gary Farber]

Another small bit of Iranian news, by the way.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

BTW, Typepad is resisting me so I can't get in to unban Barry now that the 24 cooling off period is over. Hilzoy, any chance you can do that for me?