[Peace-discuss] The threat of Iranian deterrence

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Whatever one thinks of the source, this is one of the few
comments that gets right why the US is concerned about Iranian
nukes.  --CGE]
 
   Antiwar.com 	
   August 15, 2005
   Is the Iran Crisis for Real?
   by Patrick J. Buchanan

Are the Iranian mullahs close to acquiring the bomb? Has Iran
violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty by restarting its
conversion of yellowcake into uranium hexaflouride? The answer
to both is no.

By a recent U.S. intelligence review, Iran may be 10 years
away from a bomb. And under the NPT, Iran is allowed to enrich
uranium for use in her own nuclear power plants.

Why, then, this talk of confrontation and pre-emptive strikes?
Even if Iran had a weapon, to give it to a terrorist or to use
it on a U.S. target would be an act of suicidal insanity by a
regime that, no matter how militant, has shown no desire for
war with America.

What is the worry? Just this. If or when Iran goes nuclear,
she has a deterrent to intimidation. U.S. freedom of action in
the Persian Gulf comes to an end. We would have to behave as
gingerly with the mullahs as we do with Kim Jong Il, something
intolerable to our neoconservatives and President Bush.

For the Israelis, an Iranian bomb would have the same impact
as Stalin's explosion of a bomb had on us in 1949. Israel's
invulnerability would come to an end. She would enter the
world of Mutual Assured Destruction, like the one we had to
live in during the Cold War. Thus, for Israel, the sooner the
Americans pulverize Iran's infant nuclear facilities, the
better. But herein lies the problem for President Bush.

Britain, France and Germany do not want to take the first step
to confrontation by asking the U.N. Security Council to vote
sanctions on Iran for restarting the enrichment process. And
even if the Europeans agree to go to the Security Council, a
resolution calling for sanctions would face vetoes by Russia
and China.

If the council then rejects sanctions, but America and her
NATO allies impose them, the world will be divided between
Russia-China-Iran on one side and the United States and its
backers on the other. It would be interesting to see how many
U.S. allies are willing to support sanctions on the third
largest oil producer on earth when oil is running at $65 a barrel.

Moreover, if the present negotiations end in sanctions on
Iran, then, just as North Korea sped up its nuclear program
when talks broke down, Iran might do the same. That would
leave the United States with the final option: air and missile
strikes to destroy all of Iran's known facilities for the
enrichment of uranium.

But as Iran is permitted such facilities as long as it allows
absolute freedom for U.N. inspectors, how could we justify
such acts of war?

After all, we give a $160 billion trade surplus to China,
though she is targeting our cities with nuclear missiles.
President Bush cut a deal to help India develop nuclear power,
though she has tested bombs. We give foreign aid to Pakistan
and Israel, which had clandestine and successful programs that
built atomic weapons. And we have a basket of goodies on offer
to Kim Jong Il if he will shut down his nuclear facilities and
hand over any bombs.

Where is the consistency here?

There is another consideration. Iran's response to any U.S.
strike is unlikely to be to go limp like a peacenik
demonstrator. As Michael Mazeer of the U.S. National War
College writes in The New Republic, Iran's best strategy might
be to lash out in retaliation.

What could Iran do? Plenty. Send Revolutionary Guards into
Iraq to make that country a worse hell for the 135,000 U.S.
troops. Incite Hezbollah to launch rockets on Israel to widen
the war. Attack U.S. allies in the Gulf. Encourage the
Shi'ites in Iraq and Saudi Arabia to attack Americans. Mine
the Strait of Hormuz. Activate Islamic loyalists to bring
terror home to the United States.

In short, a U.S. attack on Iran could lead to war across the
region and interruption of the 15 million barrels of oil a day
that come from the Gulf, which would drive the world economy
into instant cardiac arrest.

And as the United States lacks the ground forces to invade
Iran and topple the regime, U.S. retaliation would be
restricted to air and cruise missile strikes. But just as 9/11
united Americans behind President Bush, attacks on Iran might
unite the Iranian people behind the mullahs' regime, enhancing
its prestige as it fought America to protect Iran's equal
right to pursue nuclear power and nuclear technology, an issue
upon which almost all Iranians agree.

President Bush should think long and hard before yielding to
the War Party a second time. Iran is a nation three times the
size of Iraq and with three times the population. This would
be no cakewalk.

   COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
   Find this article at: http://www.antiwar.com/pat