by Kingston Reif On May 26 the House approved the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1540). Below is a review and analysis of the nuclear weapons related provisions in the bill, both good and bad. For easier reading, the contents include: I. New START implementation and further nuclear weapons reductions II. Nuclear targeting […]
Experts Say Likelihood of Attack on Iran is Small, Should Stay That Way
It doesn’t really matter who you ask, the answer always seems to be the same: an attack on Iran would be messy, to say the least.
Yesterday, I attended the last of four in the Arms Control Association’s series of briefings on Iran, Solving the Iranian Nuclear Puzzle. The briefing covered “The Military Option” and featured Ambassador Thomas Pickering, Jeffrey White with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Alireza Nader from RAND. While all three spoke frankly, none painted a particularly sunny picture of a potential war with Iran.
White noted, as we’ve heard before, that since it is not possible to destroy knowledge or basic technology, any setback would likely be measured in years. The idea of complete destruction of any program is just “not a fair argument to make.”
Further, White noted that, “The attack itself is a complicated thing. It’s not something you can easily gloss over the complexity of.” If we assume an air campaign of days-weeks (which White says would be necessary) then operations would need to be phased, allowing the Iranians to react and the US to respond in kind. The US and its allies would need air defense for ships, intelligence, a plan to counter Iranian missiles – altogether a lot of assets and phases would be required, all with their own complications.
On top of all this, Pickering offered his view that any attack has the very real potential to reinforce Tehran’s drive toward building a nuclear weapon.
Thankfully, Pickering also noted that, right now, the possibility of a US attack on Iran “seems to be as close to zero as one can get it, for which I’m deeply happy.”
Across town, Admiral William Fallon, former US CENTCOM Commander, also said that there is probably “little chance” of a US or Israeli strike on Iran, adding “we ought to be working pretty hard to focus on other things that would have us in a different place.”
“Improvement in relations, in my opinion, will likely occur with the realization that the interests of both people are better addressed with engagement and cooperation rather than antagonism and hostility,” said Fallon.
A Little Bill to Support Israel against Iran Poses a Serious Risk
A small number of House Republicans are threatening to undermine U.S. strategy in Iran by encouraging military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
On May 23, 2011, Representative Louie Gohmert (R-TX)) introduced House Resolution 271, a bill expressing support for “the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty…[and the use] all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.” To date 44 Republicans have co-sponsored the bill. It has been referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
This is not the first time the U.S. House and Senate have expressed such support for Israeli military strikes. In 2007, the House put forth a similar bill expressing support for Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities in Syria occurring in 2007 and in Iraq in 1981, but that bill expressed support after Israel’s strikes, not before.
Rep. Gohmert’s 2011 bill is vague and dangerous. The bill states that “if no other peaceful solutions can be found within a reasonable time” strikes are acceptable, but “reasonable time” is not defined. Libya pursued a nuclear weapons program for 25 years before finally abandoning it in 2004. Since no solution has yet been found to the Iranian nuclear impasse, does that mean military action is viable now?
Despite the threat Iran poses, the argument for using military force against Iran has never been compelling, as our own Lt. Gen. Robert Gard and Laicie Olson documented last year. Military and foreign policy experts have warned that strikes on nuclear facilities can be counter-productive for non-proliferation efforts. According to the Deulfer Report by the Iraq Study Group and reports by some Iraqi nuclear scientists, the Israeli strike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 encouraged Saddam to ramp up its nuclear weapons program and work more secretively.
In Iran, “[i]t’s possible [a strike] could be used to play to nationalist tendencies,” General Petraeus told reporters early last year. Iran’s rulers are divided over whether to build nuclear weapons, especially because they do not know if the public will accept the costs – sanctions and international isolation. Were Israel to strike Iran’s facilities, it could unify the leadership and rally the public in support of an Iranian bomb.
Pursuit of this bill is also a challenge to regional U.S. foreign policy. Polls conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in March and April 2011 showed a significant decline in U.S. popularity among most Arab publics, a reversal of the increase that followed President Obama’s election. As the Arab Spring removes American allies, such as in Egypt and Yemen, there is concern that the U.S. will lose support and influence in the Middle East.
Internationally, the Obama administration’s dual track approach of diplomatic engagement and pressure has strengthened the U.S. hand against Iran and led to international support for the toughest ever sanctions against Tehran. Rep. Gohmert’s bill undermines diligent Pentagon efforts to dissuade Israel from a military attack and the growing international support for tougher non-military measures against Iran.
Additionally, a simulation of an Israeli strike on Iran conducted by the Brookings Institution demonstrated that military strike, even if conducted by Israel, would have direct consequences for the U.S. Such an attack would likely create a conflict that engulfs the region and draws in the U.S. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, warned that a military attack on Iran would be as destabilizing as Iran becoming a nuclear state. Moreover, the Brookings simulation found that the strike would merely set the Iranian nuclear program back, not destroy it.
Considering the costs of such strikes, Gohmert’s bill is a brash and shortsighted proposal. If the intent is to show public support for Israel, it is possible to do so without offering U.S. support for a potentially illegal and certainly a disastrous military attack on Iran. Gohmert’s bill even lacks the support of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israeli lobby in the U.S. Hopefully, Israel will show restraint and this bill will go the way of its 2010 predecessor, quietly disappearing at the door of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Dueling Quote(s) of the Day: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) Edition
I’ve been doing some reading on missile defense over the past few days and came across this quote from Sen. Sessions at an April 13 Senate Strategic Forces Subcommittee hearing on the FY 2012 missile defense budget:
“The Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense establishes a global framework for regional uncertainties. If executed correctly and on time, it will represent a good approach that is both relocatable and scalable. According to the BMD review, the fourth phase of the Phased Adaptive Approach and SM–3 Block IIB will improve the defense of the homeland. As we are all aware, this layered protection could have come earlier with the prior plan that we had from the prior administration. However, I agree that defending both Europe and the U.S. from Iran with only ten interceptors was not sufficient—was not going to provide the inventory necessary to deter Iranian aggression.”
This struck me as surprising, since I recall Sen. Sessions being a little more hostile to the administration’s plans for European missile defense when the Phased Adaptive Approach was first announced in September 2009. Sure enough, here’s what Sen. Sessions had to say at the time:
“Today, on the 70th anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland, President Obama has signaled to our European allies that the United States will suddenly and inexplicably walk away from our commitment, turning our back on our allies in an apparent effort to appease Russia. This callous and cavalier decision leaves our friends out on a limb, high and dry.”
I think this demonstrates two things: 1) Sen. Sessions clearly didn’t have the facts back in September 2009 and 2) the bipartisan support for the Phased Adaptive Approach is rather strong.
Breaking Down the First New START Data Exchange
by Kingston Reif The ink is barely dry on the New START treaty, and Russia has nearly met the 2018 deadline for reductions. On June 1 the State Department released a fact sheet detailing the aggregate numbers for the strategic nuclear weapons limited by the treaty. New START limits the U.S. and Russia to no […]
