Opinion

Gregg Easterbrook

What will Iran do with nuclear weapons? Probably nothing

April 22, 2010

Gregg Easterbrook is a Reuters columnist. Any views expressed are his own.

World leaders meeting in Washington last week engaged in a competition to see which could make the strongest remark about Iran not getting an atomic bomb. President Barack Obama has asked Russia, China and other nations to form a united front against the Iranian atomic program. Vice-president Joe Biden recently said, “The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, period.”

The comments seem eerily similar to those made by presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, plus other world leaders, about preventing North Korea from acquiring the bomb. This happened anyway. Current anti-Tehran blustering and posing will be about as effective. Soon Iran will become an atomic power. The world community must prepare for this moment.

The simple reality is that other nations cannot prevent Iran from fashioning an atomic device. Cannot, except perhaps by an all-out nuclear first strike that obliterates much of the country, or invasion and permanent occupation of a nation substantially larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Conventional aerial attack might slow but cannot stop an atomic program using underground facilities – or conventional aerial attack would have been used against North Korea. (See details below on the reasons conventional airstrikes aren’t the answer regarding the Iranian program.)

Iran will acquire an atomic bomb — and it may happen soon. Here, U.S. military officials estimate  that Iran should have sufficient fissile materials for a bomb by 2011.

Various forms of American and Western fist-shaking against Iran have had little apparent impact beyond convincing Tehran to accelerate its bomb program. Last year, Obama set a “deadline” Iran had to meet, then another “deadline,” then a third “deadline” – all of which were ignored and promptly forgotten. In March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said there would be “real consequences” if Iran did not immediately end its atomic program. Iran did not, and there were no consequences.

Western nations cannot so much as agree on a new sanctions policy against Tehran. And this is just as well.  The recent history of sanctions show that they do not change government behavior, but do cause the innocent to suffer. Strong sanctions against Cuba, North Korea and Iraq when under Saddam Hussein resulted in no government-behavior changes. Sanctions are a factor in starvation in North Korea and poverty in Cuba, and caused a dramatic increase in child mortality in Iraq in the 1990s — the dead being children of average families, not of government elites. If stronger sanctions were imposed against Iran today, this would only make the Tehran government all the more determined to acquire the bomb, while causing average Iranians to suffer. Iran has a significant pro-democracy movement, one gaining in size and influence. What justice could be found in causing Iran’s pro-democracy citizens to suffer?

The lack of practical ways to stop the Iranian atomic bomb effort is seen in the fact that since the world leaders’ anti-proliferation summit in Washington, the focus of Western action has shifted to producing yet another United Nations resolution tut-tutting about Iran’s bomb project. Three Security Council resolutions on this topic since 2006 have accomplished little. Maybe the next one will contain different adjectives — that’ll show ‘em!

Of course is it alarming to think of an atomic bomb in the hands of a nation at least nominally ruled by the dull-witted anti-Semite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But experience suggests that an Iranian atomic bomb would be employed in the same way as all other atomic munitions since 1945 – to deter attack. That is to say, Iran will use an atomic bomb by not using it: the observed pattern followed by other nuclear-armed states.

Since Nagasaki, no nation possessing atomic or nuclear weapons has employed this power, because the logic of nuclear deterrence is overwhelming, If Iran acquires an atomic bomb and fires one against Israel, Tehran will be leveled 30 minutes later. The current rulers of Iran may be repugnant, but they are not madmen.

Wouldn’t possession of an atomic bomb enable Iran to bully other nations? Nuclear missiles did not do much for the old Soviet Union, even enable it to bully its weak neighbor Afghanistan. Nuclear bombs haven’t helped China bully anyone – Beijing still has little credibility in Tibet, despite its fantastic edge in power. As Peter Scoblic noted in his important 2009 book “Us Versus Them”, thousands of nuclear missiles failed to restrain America’s adversaries in the Korea and Vietnam wars, failed to intimidate Saddam, and have not helped the U.S. position in Iraq or Afghanistan. Atomic power hasn’t allowed Pakistan or India to bully neighbors, and surely has not allowed Israel to get its way.

Sixty years of actual experience suggests that atomic weapons are practical only for one purpose: to prevent your nation from being attacked. You don’t have to be political scientist Kenneth Waltz (see his 2003 book “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons”, which argues that nuclear proliferation is mainly good because it prevents war) to want to live in a world where nations don’t attack each other. Deterrence has, since 1945, ended great-power war. Deterrence has  reduced and might end regional war. There is a gamble involved, obviously. But the likely outcome of Iranian possession of an atomic bomb is that no nation will attack Iran. Why shouldn’t Iran desire this? The United States, Russia, United Kingdom and other nations desired deterrence against attack and would have been entirely outraged if lectured otherwise by the Security Council.

Assuming Iranian acquisition of atomic weapons is near-inevitable, the international response should not be more fist-shaking for the cameras and empty verbiage, but outreach to return Iran to the family of nations. A core lesson of the Cold War is that bluster fails, constructive engagement succeeds. Engagement with Iran would lower regional tensions and lend support to the Iranian democracy movement. The first step regarding Iran “should be a much more aggressive approach to diplomacy than we’ve displayed thus far,” Obama said while a senator. The best defense against Iranian nuclear arms is better diplomatic relations with Iran.


WHY WOULDN’T A MILITARY STRIKE SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

The reasons are four: that Iran is too far from Israel for that country’s air force to handle this task; that Iran’s atomic installations are too numerous and too deeply buried for the United States to handle the task without weeks of bombardment; that any attack on Iranian atomic facilities would kill Russians, with awful international consequences; and the morality of trying to solve a political problem by dropping bombs that, no matter how accurate, will kill civilians.

In 2008, Israeli fighter-bombers staged a training exercise in which they flew 900 miles across the Mediterranean, carrying ordinance and refueling in the air: 900 miles is the distance from Israel to Bushehr, location of Iran’s large nuclear reactor. The exercise was a reminder to Tehran that in 1981, Israeli warplanes badly damaged a reactor in Iraq, while in 2007, Israeli fighter-bombers destroyed an atomic facility in Syria.

But the 1981 and 2007 raids were against single installations, neither underground. Multiple raids on many Iranian installations would be far more daunting. And while Syria is adjacent to Israel, and Iraq can be reached by flying across Israel’s enemy Syria, there is no route-of-flight from Israel to Iran that does not involve airspace violation of neutral or friendly nations.

To use the best route of flight to Bushehr, Israeli warplanes would need permission to cross Saudi Arabia, permission the Saudis are unlikely to grant: Israeli breach of Saudi airspace could spark war. Israeli planes could fly across Iraq to Iran. But an attack on its territory staged through Iraq would give Iran a casus belli against Baghdad, and create a legal pretext for Iran to target U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Flying much of the way through Syrian airspace is possible – Israel used U.S.-built electronic countermeasures to blind Syrian radars during the 2007 raid. But in this case, Israeli warplanes still would need to cross part of Iraq, or violate the airspace of Turkey, the region’s sole Islamic democracy. Israeli violation of Turkish airspace might radicalize Turkey against Israel, only adding to its enemies.

In theory, Israeli warplanes could fly hundreds of miles out of their way, first south along the Red Sea, then turning north across the Arabian Sea, and enter Iran without use of a neighbor’s airspace. This would require so many airborne refuelings both going and coming back that the logistics are hard to imagine. All Israel strike aircraft are short-range fighters: the country does not possess heavy bombers that can travel long distances without refueling, or aircraft carriers that could launch a strike from international waters. And even if an all-overwater flight worked, Israel would need to stage many such raids to more than damage Iran’s multiple nuclear installations.

The United States, which has long-range bombers and aircraft carriers, could conduct a sustained air campaign against Iranian weapons sites. In 2006 and 2007, Pentagon planning for an attack on Iranian atomic facilities assumed not some quick event but two weeks of air and cruise-missile strikes involving hundreds to thousands of tons of munitions. U.S. pilots would be flying against Russian-built air defenses, some of them late-model. Russian technicians would die in the strikes. Moscow-Washington relations might be sent back to the Cold War: imagine how the United States would feel if Russian bombers spent weeks attacking an American client state, killing many Americans in the process. Even if bombing of Iranian atomic facilities worked in the technical sense, it would be likely to make the international situation worse rather than better.

As for morality, let’s hope things have not gone so far that the United States has stopped considering this.

Comments
61 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

Whatever fool or fools keep posting that the “criminal” US nuked “poor” Japanese civilians needs to read their history. How many “poor” Chinese were slaughtered by the Japanese in WWII? How many Filipinos, Burmese, Koreans, were exterminated by the Japanese? When you get the answer to those questions, then compare number of “poor” Japanese killed in BOTH Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Japanese got off easy. Imagine if the US had to invade mainland Japan. The death toll would have been much worse. Remember that the Japanese started the war with the US, they were just as brutal a conquerer as the Nazi’s, just unfortunately, less publicized.

Posted by cjdelgross | Report as abusive
 

“Zero evidence of bomb making capability in Iran”.

Indeed, and a Monkey will fly out of my ass at any moment….

Posted by cjdelgross | Report as abusive
 

Very interesting report.

Thanks

Posted by ActionDan | Report as abusive
 

The “Persian Empire” is history, and modern-day Iran has no such ambitions–unlike Israel, a criminal state that steals Palestinian land daily. U.S. animosity towards Iran, a country that poses no threat to America, is being fueled by Israel and its shils in the US Congress and AIPAC. Let’s not do anymore of Israel’s dirty fighting. We turned a blind eye to its invasion of Lebanon and Gaza–war crimes of immense proportions. Let’s not give this criminal state anymore support for its illegal actions.

Posted by Medusa | Report as abusive
 

“Countries with nuclear weapons do not get attacked, it’s that simple.” – Posted by feverhost

Did the US destroy all of it’s arms Sept 10, 2001, and then rebuild them all Sept 12?

Did England not have them when its subways were attacked?

Did India not have them when Mumbai was attacked?

Does Pakistan not have them when insurgents from Afghanistan cross the border?

Does Isreal not have them when Hamas attacks?

Posted by drewbie | Report as abusive
 

NOTE TO MODERATOR: I DON”T UNDERSTAND WHY THE FOLLOWING, WHICH I SUBMITTED
YESTERDAY, WAS NOT DISPLAYED? I AM QUESTIONING THE ARTICLE’S POOR
CHARACTERIZATION OF THE IRANIAN LEADERSHIP, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE BASIS FOR
PRE-EMPTIVE WAR. SEEMS PRETTY RELEVANT TO ME.

Commenting on the article by Mr. Easterbrook:

The conclusions are reasonable, but some of the premises are off:

(1) Ahmadinejad has allegedly said “wipe Israel off the face of the earth”, but that is just more Zionist/Western propaganda. Check Wikipedia, and Juan Cole. Also, he is said to be a Holocaust denier, but really, he asked questions about the Holocaust. For most people, there is a difference. Basically, he does not seem like an anti-Semite, only an anti-Zionist. There is a difference, but the Zionist propaganda has them the same.

(2) Ahmadinejad has predicted the demise of the Zionist regime in Israel, that is, Israel becomes simply another country, not a Jewish (apartheid) country. There are quite a few sensible, intelligent people throughout the world who also predict this. Moreover, it appears to be a just solution to the problem. Ahmadinejad has called for a vote of Israelis and Palestinians as to whether they want the one- or two-state solutions. At any rate, none of this makes a “dull-witted anti-Semite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad”.

(3) Ahmadinejad did a good job of upstaging Obama’s nuclear proliferation summit with his own, clearly pointing out to the world the contradictions of the US leading nuclear disarmament.

(4) Maybe the Islamic leaders of Iran really do feel constrained by the Koran, not to make nuclear weapons. Maybe they can construe the Koran to allow them to create the possibility of making a nuclear weapon, as a deterrent to US and/or Israel attack. Really, that could save thousands, maybe millions, of lives. I don’t see that any Westerner really knows. At least, Iran sounds a lot more moral than US/Israel threatening that everything is on the table (including nuking Iran).

(5) Even our intelligence agencies agree that Iran is not presently
constructing a nuclear weapon.

(6) Clearly US/West/Israel leaders want hegemony over the Middle East, and
Iran has the last leaders standing in their way.

(7) It appears that the Iranian government is simply out-smarting all the big (headed) brains of the US and Israel. If Iranian leaders are dimwits, what are ours?

All I can think, concerning the proforma Iran/Ayatollah/Ahmadinejad bashing, that its purpose is to give political cover for a perfectly rational analysis of the real consequences if Iran is building a bomb. Nice going! I’m starting to get some of my faith back in Reuters.

Posted by xcanada2 | Report as abusive
 

xcanada2

If you like Ahmadinejad so much and feel so compeled to defend such a regime, then please PLEASE by ALL MEANS renounce your citizenship and leave, I am sure you will be happy in Iran.

Posted by cjdelgross | Report as abusive
 

To cjdelgross, re Usual Mindless Comments:

Thank you for once again showing the paucity of your arguments, by resorting to personal attacks.
It’s not that Ahmadinejad is so great, it’s just that I choose not to join the mindless propagandizers and their victims.

Posted by xcanada2 | Report as abusive
 

xcanada
Yes, I see, you choose to join the side of opression, hate, and religious zealotry. We in the mindless world are simply better off witout you. It is nothing personal, just remember your comments when the mindless ones are putting their lives on the line for you.

Posted by cjdelgross | Report as abusive
 

Every single argument in this article is quite silly and immoral. To pretend that iranian ruling mullahs would not use nuclear weapons as soon as they aquire them is WRONG WRONG WRONG. Multiple times they express their desire to wipe Israel off the face of earth. They kill and torture their own people who dont share their extreme views. They supply many terrorist groups with most advanced weaponry they can produce, they have been the main source of instability throughout ME. IF US does not change this trend soon one way or the other, Iran will pose an existential thread to Israel and I think Israel will have all the rights to attack Iran, no matter which airspace used.

Posted by marusya | Report as abusive
 

The Iranian and Syrian strongmen need no further motivation for seeking nukes than seeing what happened to Muammar Kaddafi yesterday. If Kaddafi had nuke tipped anti-ship missles NATO would have never attacked him and he could have wiped out the rebels very quickly.

The same thing goes for North Korea; if the US tries to move against them they will roast South Korea in nuclear fire. Nukes are very good deterrents no matter who you’re facing off against.

Posted by Gunluvr | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •