Why We Can’t Deter Iran (because we aren’t)

The American Thinker ^ | 6 June 2006 | LTC Joseph C. Myers

[MaximusRules]

"The Iranian nuclear program crisis is currently presenting the greatest challenge to the national security strategy of the Bush Administration. Strategists, diplomats and policy makers are all hard at work trying to craft a course of action and an international coalition that will dissuade and/or prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons...

So absent military action and the West’s acquiescence to a nuclear armed Iran, can Iran be deterred from proliferating nuclear weapons and associated technology? Can we be assured they won’t pass one to a proxy?

The answer is no, at least as current US strategies are crafted..."

[MaximusRules]

Argument that without an ironclad diplomatic solution [doubtful] and absent military action, the US must change its nuclear deterrence strategy in a world with rogue states acquiring nuclear weapons and terrorist actors. Good points. Note the comments on China and Russia.

[saganite]

Not enough keywords.

[ichabod1]

Yeah when Tancredo suggested this he was called a racist warmonger. The President would need to recognize that US Cities and US Citizens are somewhat "special" in order to enact a deterrence policy. He would need to specify that certain things would happen if anyone messes with us because we're "special". That the "citizen of the world" business only goes so far. I'm not holding my breath, but I hope he does the right thing.

[livius]

True. We've obviously resigned ourselves to the fact that our enemies are arming themselves rapidly and dangerously, and because we lack world support, we do not feel we can do anything about it. So I guess this means we have to wait for a few hundred thousand of our citizens to die agonizing deaths, have our entire economy destroyed - and then maybe we'll finally be "justified" in responding.

Sorry, it's not a good plan. The thing that the author of this article seems not to grasp is that, for one thing, these nutcases don't care if they and their countries get vaporized. Their goal is to inflict as much damage as possible and bring us down. China and Russia believe they are safe, and, frankly, they've always managed so much deniability that they would be. As for the Muslim world, they're all crazy; and so is North Korea.

I'd rather have a policy that told them right up front that any sign of nuclear weaponry would mean massive bombing of any place we believe it to exist. And then we have to carry through and actually do this.

[Man of the Right]

Iran policy is a bet-the-society decision amidst lousy intelligence. Basically, the President can elect to allow the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons and hope a stable detergence regime can be developed, or he can resort to non-decisive action (bombing or sanctions). Presumably, invasion followed by an insurgency is off the table due to lack of the necessary force structure and political support.

The last time the U.S. or Britain faced a decision of comparable importance is when George VI had to decide whether to send for Halifax or Churchill or Lincoln had to decide whether to withdraw the garrison from Sumter.

I'm glad I don't have to decide. I've always thought of 43 as the modern Harry Truman -- a courageous, inarticulate unpopular guy who has to hammer out a war-winning strategy without experience or obvious precedents. Also, he has the rotten luck to be President now. He's got Hoover's or Buchanan's luck.

[MaximusRules]

I don't think the author took a position on military action but argued absent that action and Iran acquiring nukes current US nuclear deterrent strategy is no good...I think you both agree in the main.

The current plan is no good that's for sure.

Not sure where Bush is on this whether he will use military action or not...

[Salem]

"... A mushroom cloud in the US will be a “triggering event.” As long as everyone understands that at the table, let Iran and North Korea have their nuclear weapons."

Geez.

Undertsanding the military mind, I'll assume he is factoring the costs of the massive civilian casualties against the cost of Bush implementing a pre-emptive action against an enemy sworn to destroy us, in the current geo-political environment. And accepting that cost.

Too bad leftist liberalism and the Democrats have weakened us so much in the eyes of the world that these lillers do not fear us.

Guess I'll stear clear of any major cities or symbolic targets in the years ahead.

---

AMERICA AT WAR
At Salem the Soldier's Homepage ~
Honored member of FReeper Leapfrog's "Enemy of Islam" list.
Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links...  by backhoe
Translated Pre-War IRAQ Documents  by jveritas
Mohammed, The Mad Poet Quoted....  by PsyOp
One FReeper On The Line  by SNOWFLAKE
The Clash of Ideologies - A Review

[JasonC]

He won't. Blinking right now, the bluff was obvious 10 miles away and the Iranians raised. They will now collect their payments to lie to us again and continue doing what they've been doing all along. And we won't do diddly.

[garbageseeker]

But we can deter Iran from getting nuclear weapons. But we need help from or ally in the Middle East: Israel.

Israel holds the key in deterring Iran from getting the bomb.

The great Ariel Sharon said this "The Arabs may have the oil, but we have the matches"

We must use the strength of all of the Israeli services in conjunction with ours. Together, we will win.

[MaximusRules]

The point of the article as I read it is not Iran directly attacking the US but about proliferating states like China Pakistan Iran and North Korea and the US being attacked on some non-attribution basis by terrorists Hezbollah al Qaida, whoever, its unimportant...etc.

So this is not about a trade-off between pre-emption and being attacked overtly but how to preempt proliferation and covert attacks...when we probably or may not know what is going on beforehand.

I think this is the point of the article; how to adapt our deterrence strategy to countries like Iran having nukes with highly capable proxies and terrorists in the world.

The implication is that if an event happens, the USD may respond anyway against Iran North Korea China and lot of other people irrespective of what we know...that's why I like the argument...if it scares the crap out of these losers maybe they will go around and spend resources and prevent an attack on the US vice our having to do the lifting alone...

I think Iran would like to see the US destroyed but they risk being destroyed if a nuclear event occurs here under this strategy and that may or may not give us or force the cooperation and security we want.

Iran is not safe having nukes under this strategy.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

My strategies:

Short Term: Destroy Iran and North Korea now.

Sucks to have just one or a few bombs and an itty bitty country.

Long Term: U.S. gets nuked, everybody gets it.

Sucks to have an attack on somebody with thousands of nukes and able to deliver them from anywhere to anywhere in the world.

[2001convSVT]

Nothing will happen. We will wake up one morning to the news that Iran has successfully tested a nuclear device. The liberal media will be all over the administration with "how could this happen"!

The only action that will prevent Iran for getting the bomb is Iran attacking and precipitating a war (before they have the bomb).

Welcome to the nuclear club Iran. I can see Iran stockpiling about 200 before it launches its war.>

[ichabod1]

"... A mushroom cloud in the US will be a “triggering event.” As long as everyone understands that at the table, let Iran and North Korea have their nuclear weapons."

The problem is this: You can establish the doctrine that the mushroom cloud, is a triggering event. But then you have to wonder who believes it and who doesn't. And then the biggest worry is those fanatics that would LIKE to see that happen so they can immanentize the eschaton.

[ichabod1]

I think using detergence to wash out the Iranian regime is a great idea.

[ichabod1]

Israel holds the key in deterring Iran from getting the bomb.

This is important. The relation between Israel and us is like the relationship between the bacon and the egg. For the chicken it's a good day's work but for the pig it's a total commitment.

We wouldn't like to see a nucular Iran with WMD threatening its neighbors. Israel simply can't tolerate it. So we have to make our moves knowing that if we don't do the right thing Israel eventually is going to have to.

History is such a weird thing. Looking back it seems like things happen one after another but living it, it drags out day after slow and painful day.

[ichabod1]

Sucks to have an attack on somebody with thousands of nukes and able to deliver them from anywhere to anywhere in the world

Yeah, everybody says we don't have the resources to fight two simultaneous wars -- I say we could easily fight 30-40 simultaneous wars. ;o)

[kenth]

Yep, MAD only works with a foe who doesn't want to die.

[garbageseeker]

Iran's leader is the new Hitler and he must be stopped at all costs. The Western nations should not repeat the mistakes of history when the appeased Hitler in the 1938 Munich conferences. The stakes are extremely high.