Deterring Teheran

Beyond appeasement or military action, is there a third option?

By
May 9, 2006 20:36
3 minute read.

 
X

Dear Reader,
As you can imagine, more people are reading The Jerusalem Post than ever before. Nevertheless, traditional business models are no longer sustainable and high-quality publications, like ours, are being forced to look for new ways to keep going. Unlike many other news organizations, we have not put up a paywall. We want to keep our journalism open and accessible and be able to keep providing you with news and analyses from the frontlines of Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World.

As one of our loyal readers, we ask you to be our partner.

For $5 a month you will receive access to the following:

  • A user experience almost completely free of ads
  • Access to our Premium Section
  • Content from the award-winning Jerusalem Report and our monthly magazine to learn Hebrew - Ivrit
  • A brand new ePaper featuring the daily newspaper as it appears in print in Israel

Help us grow and continue telling Israel’s story to the world.

Thank you,

Ronit Hasin-Hochman, CEO, Jerusalem Post Group
Yaakov Katz, Editor-in-Chief

UPGRADE YOUR JPOST EXPERIENCE FOR 5$ PER MONTH Show me later Don't show it again

As the Iranian regime barrels forward, openly calling for the destruction of Israel and overtly breaking the nuclear non-proliferation rules, two distinctly undesirable prospects confront the West. The first is to acquiesce to Teheran and hope for the best. Perhaps deterrence will work and the six-decade moratorium on using atomic weapons will remain in place. Perhaps the Iranian leadership will shed its messianic outlook. Perhaps no other states will repeat Iran's decision to flaunt the rules they had promised to obey. The key words in this scenario are "hope" and "perhaps," with the proverbial wing and prayer replacing strategic plans. This is not, to put it mildly, the usual way great powers conduct business. The second prospect consists of the US government (and perhaps some allies) destroying key Iranian installations, thereby delaying or terminating Teheran's nuclear aspirations. Military analysts posit that American air power, combined with good intelligence and specialized ordinance, suffice to do the needed damage in a matter of days; plus, it could secure the Straits of Hormuz. But an attack will have unfavorable consequences, and especially in two related areas: Muslim public opinion and the oil market. All indications suggest that air strikes would cause the now-alienated Iranian population newly to rally to its government. Globally, air strikes would inflame already hostile Muslim attitudes toward the United States, leading to a surge in support for radical Islam and a further separation of civilizations. News reports indicate that Teheran is funding terrorist groups so that they can assault American embassies, military bases, and economic interests, step up attacks in Iraq, and launch rockets against Israel. Even if Western military forces can handle these challenges, air raids may cause Iranians and their supporters to withhold oil and gas from the market, engage in terror against energy infrastructure, and foment civil unrest, all of which could create an economic downturn rivaling the energy-induced recession of the mid-1970s. Faced with these two unappealing alternatives, I conclude, along with John McCain, that "There's only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option. That is a nuclear-armed Iran." BUT IS there a third, more palatable option? Finding it is the goal of every analyst who addresses the topic, including this one. That third option necessarily involves a mechanism to dissuade the Iranian regime from developing and militarizing its atomic capabilities. Does such a deterrence exist? Yes, and it even has a chance of success. Iran, fortunately, is not an absolute dictatorship where a single person makes all key decisions, but an oligarchy with multiple power centers and with debate on many issues. The political leadership itself is divided, with important elements dubious about the wisdom of proceeding with nukes, fearful of the international isolation that will follow, not to speak of air strikes. Other influential sectors of society - religious, military, and economic in particular - also worry about the headlong rush. A campaign by Iranians to avoid confrontation could well prevail, as Iran does not itself face an atomic threat. Going nuclear remains a voluntary decision, one Teheran can refrain from making. Arguably, Iranian security would benefit by staying non-nuclear. Forces opposed to nuclearization need to be motivated and unified, and that is made more likely by strong external pressure. Were Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Middle Easterners, and others to act in sync with Washington, that would help mobilize opposition elements in Iran. Indeed, those states have their own reasons to dread both a nuclear Teheran and the bad precedent that sets for other potential atomic powers, such as Brazil and South Africa. That international cooperation, however, is not materializing, as can be seen at the United Nations. The Security Council meanders on the Iran issue and an Iranian official has been elected to, of all things, the UN's disarmament commission (which is tasked with achieving nuclear disarmament. Deterring Teheran requires sustained, consistent external pressure on the Iranian body politic. That implies, ironically, that those most adverse to US-led air strikes must (1) stand tight with Washington and (2) convince Iranians of the terrible repercussions for them of defying the international consensus. Such steps offer no guarantee of success, but they do present the only realistic way to prevent grave dangers. The writer is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Miniatures. www.DanielPipes.org

Related Content

US President Donald Trump reacts to a question during an interview with Reuters in the Oval Office o
August 21, 2018
Trump vows 'no concessions' with Turkey over detained U.S. pastor

By REUTERS