Posted on 09/02/2006 2:26:54 PM PDT by Paul Ross
A Cure Worse than the Disease
By Ted Galen Carpenter
July 11th, 2006
Reaction Essay
Reuel Marc Gerecht provides a provocative analysis of the Iran problem that continues to bedevil U.S. foreign policy. Iran would be at or near the top of a list of countries Americans would least like to see have nuclear weapons, and the reason for apprehension has deepened dramatically in the past year with the emergence of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ultimately, though, Gerecht's policy prescription--preventive military action to eliminate (or more accurately, to delay) Tehran's nuclear program is a classic case of a cure that is worse than the disease.
It is somewhat surprising (and gratifying) that Gerecht distances himself from the favorite panacea of other neoconservatives somehow orchestrating an overthrow of the clerical regime without an extensive U.S. military role. Unfortunately, he attributes the limitations of that approach to the alleged lack of enthusiasm for pro-democracy covert operations on the part of the CIA and other government agencies rather than to the inherent impracticality of the scheme. Enthusiastic proponents of regime change, such as Gerecht's colleague at the American Enterprise Institute Michael Ledeen, have no such doubts. According to them, there is so much Iranian public opposition to the mullahs that a U.S. propaganda offensive combined with financial and logistical assistance to prospective insurgents would be sufficient to topple the regime.
Such a thesis might seem more plausible if we had not heard similar arguments in the years leading up to the Iraq war. Those arguments were quietly buried when the time for action arrived. Saddam Hussein’s overthrow was carried out by a massive application of U.S. military power. If the United States adopts a strategy of regime change in Iran, it is likely that an even greater military effort would be required.
Gerecht's strategy of preemptive air strikes against Iran's nuclear installations may be more practical than the chimera of easy regime change, but it is also more dangerous. Proponents of preventive military action typically cite the successful Israeli strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 as a model. There are numerous problems with that approach, however. Osirak was one easily identified, above-ground site. There are numerous nuclear-related sites in Iran€“many of which are in or near major population centers, maximizing the probable number of civilian casualties in an attack. Indeed, thousands of innocent Iranians would perish in U.S. air strikes.
Moreover, there is no certainty that we have identified all of the relevant targets. There could be many other covert facilities, since Tehran has had nearly three decades to pursue its nuclear activities. Worst of all, some of the installations may be in reinforced, underground locations. Taking out such sites with conventional weapons would be problematic at best. Although some ultra-hawkish types have mused about using nuclear €"bunker busters"€ for the required strikes, crossing the nuclear threshold is a momentous step that could come back to haunt the United States in multiple ways.
Even launching conventional strikes would be extremely dangerous. At the very least, Tehran would be tempted to cause even more trouble than it is already doing for U.S. and British occupation forces in Iraq. The infiltration of a few thousand dedicated Revolutionary Guards could accomplish that goal. The Iranian regime would also be tempted to unleash its terrorist ally, Hezbollah, on American targets throughout the Middle East. And there is always the risk that an attacked and humiliated Iran might do something incredibly rash, such as closing the Strait of Hormuz or launching attacks against Israel, triggering a massive regional crisis.
Finally, there is the probable impact on the rest of the Muslim world. If the United States attacks yet another Muslim country (which would make three in the last five years), there will not be a Muslim from Morocco to Malaysia who will not believe that Washington is out to destroy their culture and religion. America's troubles with the Islamic world do not yet constitute a war of civilizations, but Gerecht's strategy could well produce that result. The military option is one that no rational U.S. policymaker should consider.
Gerecht is correct that the current round of diplomacy led by the EU-3, and now finally joined by the United States, will probably not produce a solution to the nuclear problem. The most discussed alternative, UN-mandated economic sanctions, holds out little prospect of success either. Even if Russia and China ultimately go along with meaningful sanctions (and that is not likely), sanctions have a dismal historical record when it comes to getting regimes to abandon high-priority policies. And acquiring a nuclear arsenal appears to be a high-priority policy for Tehran. That leaves two other options.
The first is to accept a nuclear-armed Iran and rely on a policy of containment and deterrence. Gerecht is skeptical of that approach, but it is a policy that has a good track record.
Admittedly, the presence of Ahmadinejad makes the deterrence option more nerve-wracking. It is worth remembering, though, that Iran's political system is fairly diffuse, and Ahmadinejad is only one actor among many. Indeed, despite his lofty title of president, he had to submit several candidates before he induced the parliament to approve his nominee for oil minister. Iran, under Ahmadinejad, is not a tightly centralized system like Germany under Hitler and the Soviet Union under Stalin where one man's decision could plunge the nation into war.
The experience of dealing with Stalin is pertinent in another way. The United States has successfully deterred other repugnant and bizarre regimes. Stalin was a genocidal psychopath, yet he was never so reckless as to attack a nuclear-armed America or even U.S. allies in Western Europe.
Washington's experience with China in the 1960s and early 1970s is perhaps even more pertinent. China became a nuclear power under Mao Zedong, a leader who exceeded even Stalin's record of genocide. His publicly enunciated views on nuclear warfare also were alarming in the extreme. His boast that China could outlast the United States in a nuclear war of attrition so disturbed the other communist giant, the USSR, that Soviet leaders hastened to assure their American counterparts that such thinking in no way reflected the Kremlin's views.
China also emerged as a nuclear power on the eve of the Cultural Revolution. China during that orgy of fanaticism makes today's Iran look like a normal, even sedate, country. U.S. policymakers were understandably very uneasy about China joining the ranks of nuclear-weapons states. Yet they rejected the advice of those inside and outside government who advocated military action to take out Beijing's nuclear program. Given the constructive changes that have taken place in China, and the important relationship that has grown up between Washington and Beijing in the past three decades, history has vindicated a policy of restraint.
A similar policy of caution and deterrence may also pay off with Iran. It is not an easy or comfortable course to advocate, but it is more realistic and less dangerous than launching another preventive war.
Containment and deterrence is not the optimal strategy, however. We should make a serious diplomatic effort to get Iran to give up its quest for nuclear weapons“and that means going substantially beyond the scope of the current EU-3-led negotiations. Washington should propose a grand bargain to Tehran. That means giving an assurance that the United States will not use force against Iran the way we did against such nonnuclear adversaries as Serbia and Iraq. It also means offering restored diplomatic relations and normal economic relations. In return, Iran would be required to open its nuclear program to unfettered international inspections to guarantee that the program is used solely for peaceful power-generation purposes.
It is possible that Tehran would spurn a proposed grand bargain, since the Iranian political elite seems divided about whether to seek a rapprochement with the United States. Indeed, Iran may be unalterably determined to join the global nuclear weapons club. But we will never know for certain unless we make the offer.
If Iran turns down the proposal, Washington's fall-back position should be to rely on deterrence. The one thing we should not do is start yet another war.
Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Article printed from Cato Unbound: http://www.cato-unbound.org
URL to article: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/07/11/ted-galen-carpenter/a-cure-worse-than-the-disease/
Click to print.
He was decisively wrong about China, and our policies there...as they clearly are building up for a devastating sneak attack...on us. And using proxies. Only an idiot would think otherwise. Carpenter doesn't understand the use of proxies.
And he is wrong about Iran. Iran will nuke us and Israel. Deterrence won't work on them...just as it wouldn't have worked with Hitler getting the bomb.
Edwin Starr
Not bad...
But this Cato-ite's delusions of intelligent statecraft...and the elixir of deterrence that somehow magically works without the fundamental cement...the credibility of our resolve and our force capabilities. This magical thinking reminds me more of this guy:
I’m not saying don’t use military force on Iran, but go in with open eyes to the consequences. Most of this is from one of my posts yesterday:
1) If Bush prepared to act without Congressional authority, his opposition in State, the Pentagon or where ever would blow the whistle. Democrats would try to force him to seek their approval. If he refused, they’d try to paralyze the government. I don’t know if they could succeed, but Bush’s MO is to find compromise when confronted by political division.
2) If Bush presses Congress for the authority to conduct an air campaign, Democrats will try to rally a majority against his unwillingness to exhaust diplomatic options. I don’t know if they’ll achieve a majority, but it will be close.
3) If Bush spends another two years exhausting diplomatic options, Democrats will probably stand 100% united against a new military campaign in an election year, likely pulling in a few Republicans to capture the majority. I think this one's a no-go.
4) As all this transpires and we prepare for war, much of the world will take advantage of our vulnerability and work to isolate us and profit from defending Iran, the Middle East or anyone who feels they're on our target list.
5) The effect on Iraqi stabilization could go either way. Will Iran’s inability to stir things up out way the Shia majority’s anger at Shia deaths, even if they are not Arabs.
6) When a nation falls into chaos, extremist usually thrive and dominate. We may be able to remove their nukes, but without civilizing what remains, we can’t find and destroy their bio.
This is just just off the top of my head, certainly not a complete list and there are certainly offsetting political advantages and dynamics that can’t be predicted, but at least this much needs to be accounted for when weighing our options with Iran.
The point is, that knowing a group of people mean you harm, is it best to wait them out in the hope they change their mind, or they never achieve the means to do you harm, or to solve the problem now for least cost?
I don't think they are going to change their minds, and I don't think they're going to fail to achieve the means of doing us harm.
I think they should be told, fair and square, unless they change their intentions, and provably give up attaining the means to do us harm, then we will force them.
That puts the onus on them.
Or accept it and immediately continue violating it, as did the North Koreans. The author didn't mention that one in his invocation of successful track records.
That's because Stalin was working for himself and not for God(Allah).
If Stalin got killed its all over for him.
If Ahmadinejad gets killed, it is just the beginning of eternal life with Allah. - tom
****
I have a neighbor through the woods who is building this great big cannon and pointing it right at our house. He talks all the time about getting rid of my family. What could/or should I do?
To start, swing some of the 10,000 cannons you already have in his direction and help the more sane members of his family to off him.
LOL... yeh, it's time for a revolt/rebellion/overthrow in Iran ...... but that's not going to happen.
I agree. I think this’ll play out like a chess match for many years, with each side maneuvering militarily, economically, politically and socially until someone gains such an advantage that the other’s either forced to make a desperate move or that their time for that passes and they’re so weak that they can do nothing. Then a revolution is plausible. Hope it’s not ours…
Agreed. You also heard that we were very nearly nuked as the old Soviet's regime's last desperate act as they were being toppled in Moscow? [ Assuming this was a true story, and not further disinformation to legitimize a ruse. ]
Deterrence is a balancing act on a the razor sharp edge of a sword.
Indeed it was, and people in the rosy-view of victory forget the sheer terror we were managing...the very real efforts of the Soviets and Chinese (still to this day) deployed immense civil defense works and structured their forces to actually "prevail" in any exchange, leaving them with the only surviving population and a nuclear blackmail force to rule by fiat over the remnant of the planet.*
The Iranians already have a back door avenue of attack, they call it "terrorism" and they pretend that they aren't responsible, because the are not in control of the passions of various oppressed groups all over the world.
And isn't it interesting how the Russians and Chinese provide sophisticated arms to them (often covertly, and denying "willful" complicity when caught) and advise these regimes, and run diplomatic cover for these shenanigans at the U.N. And we never bust them on it. Never.
No, deterrence will not work, if it is maintained by allied regimes that think appeasement is preferable to military strength, and military strength means a willingness to use military force when a certain line is crossed. The Iranians will cross that line, and we will back down. Why should they fear? Poof goes deterrence!
Agreed.
It takes resolve. It also takes capability...which the RINOs and liberals in their "superpower" arrogance think we have supreme advanatages in. We won't after we are hit by a surprise first strike. This is what they never factor in. They only look at pre-war strike potentials. They never look at the issues of "survivability" "endurance" or "credibility". They frequently discount the possibility of being caught unawares with confabulatory assertions of our national technical means of intelligence. We never did detect all those SS-22's and SS-23s salted away in burrows in Eastern Europe by the Soviets. And the Russian "federation" never admitted to the deceptions in their SALT II negotiations. It was only the people of those countries who ratted out the Russians that let us catch the deception. We never punished the Russians for their brazen and willful acts of malice in this regard. Just like W still does nothing about Putin's deceptions, the continuing refusal to allow Yarmantau Mountain to be inspected, etc. And on China, we just breezily ignore their awarding tremendous accolades on the authors of "Unrestricted Warfare." And now they are both commencing major modernization and rebuilding of their military from the ground up...with the oil money they are flush with in Russia, and our imports of Chinese manufactures which the Regime skims S200 billion/year or so off of.
Why do I veer off on this digression? Because it bears on our enemy's assessment of our actual resolve. Our willingness to draw lines which are indeed flash points for our taking decisive action.
I don't think we can have any confidence that they haven't concluded that this administration and all likely successors...are appeasers, and too weak to ever respond with force against anyone of their caliber. Especially if the attacks against us are launched by their proxies. We will always just meekly accept their plausible denials of complicity...no matter how improbable.
_______________________________
*And interestingly enough, the Russian Federation is not dismantling the primary instrument of their first strike threats...the SS-18...whereas we discarded our ace card, the MX...and four Trident subs, denuclearized all our B-1Bs, limited B-2's to a pathetic 20 bombers. All unilaterally.
The Alliance of Life vs. The Axis of Death
How mankind’s latest challenge is going to turn out we don't know yet, that it is going to be a long war is already clear. It reminds me of the Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times". Which of us thought it would be us living those interesting times. It was only recently that some bozo was declaring the end of history, yea right! And let’s get rid of the patent office as well.
What follows is an idea that I have been posting everywhere. I believe this is the campaign the Allies of Life should chose to fight next, in what many are now calling World War IV.
It is said that Captains should study Tactics, and Generals should study Logistics.
Most of the Terrorists are being paid to fight, if this pay, training, and supply was interdicted, many Terrorists would have to go find work. At the present time, Iran is the largest funding source in the world for Terrorists, contributing as much as $1 billion in money, arms, and training every year.
I believe the following would significantly improve our strategic position in the War on Terror.
We should destroy the Iranian oil industry. By Bombing all oil transportation facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, rolling stock, refinery’s etc… we can cripple the funding of numerous terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, Hama’s, Sadr’s militia, Syria, as well as make it more difficult for Iran to buy missiles and such from North Korea, China, and Russia.
It would remove Iran’s threat that if we attack they will shut off the oil. Making the threat ridiculous and demonstrating that they are a single product state and without oil, and no other product that the world wants, they are nothing. Additionally, by declaring that we will destroy any reconstituting oil industry as long as the Mullacracy remains in charge, we can focus the Iranian’s blame for the situation, on the Theocracy and their support of Terrorism.
This will also bring home to all the other oil producing countries like Venezuela, Libya, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, etc… that they are very vulnerable to the same tactic, and they better start to cooperate, or else.
In addition, this will gain us time for the Iraqi’s to stand on their own, and free up troops we would need if we have to go into Iran, North Korea or somewhere else. (At the moment I don't think we could, or should put boots on the ground in Iran)
Sure the price of gas will rise, but this will also demonstrate to the world that the USA is not in Iraq for the Oil, and the onus can be shifted on to the Democrats for not allowing more domestic production.
“It’s not the control of the spice but the power to destroy the spice that is the real power. [From Dune]”
It has recently been said that the nuclear production facilities in Iran are so deep underground that we can’t reach them with conventional weapons. Perhaps so, but maybe we can starve those facilities of funds. Nuclear weapons are terribly expensive to build, and if Iran now needs all its money to repair vital life supporting infrastructure, it may have to slow or stop its attempt to build an atomic bomb.
Finally, Iran is a state sponsor of Terrorists, it must be punished, and it must be seen to be punished. Iran’s continued sponsorship of terror is a slap in America’s and President Bush’s face, and it must be answered.
The following was written in response to an objection I received about having to pay more for fuel if this strategy was followed.
I think you are overly concerned about the economic considerations, and not concerned enough about the need to prosecute the War on Terror to the utmost.
1. The US has a full Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 700 million Barrels, and we aren't the only nation with an SPR. What good is it if you never use it? The average price paid on that 700 million barrels was $27, so the nation would actually make a profit selling it now.
2. The only reason the US isn't energy independent now is because of political factors. We have 2 Trillion Barrels of oil trapped in oil shale (see www.oiltechinc.com). A technique now exists to turn any organic matter into fuel (see www.powerenergy.com). The US would and should be using much more nuclear power, (if it wasn't for the Ecofreaks we would be now). There are also many areas in the US that are now off limits to drilling. All it takes is the political will to develop all of these. Higher fuel prices will provide that political pressure.
3. Iran is using diplomatic processes, just like the Nazi's before them. So talking to them is a waste of our time, and just gives them time to develop nukes.
4. Iran subsidizes gas at $.10 a gallon, so by destroying the Iranian oil industry not only do we instantly remove 20% of their GDP. We put them all on foot, and in the dark.
5. The mullahs want to take their world back to the 7th century, we should assist them. By going medieval on Iran, we would serve notice on every Authoritarian regime whose only support is oil, that their days are numbered.
6. My recommended solution for American energy independence: a combination of tax breaks, loan guarantees (all energy development is capital intensive), and the government purchase of the patents held by Oil-Tech, and Power Energy, and making them open source.
The following further expands on the idea.
Iran exports 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, Iranian as well as the rest of the Persian Gulf oil producers, produce what is called heavy sour crude which typically sells for ~20% less than the benchmark sweet light crude quoted on the spot markets. So, with that understanding we can roughly calculate the gross income Iran’s economy generates from oil exports. At a price of $75 Barrel Iran will get 80% of that price for its low grade crude, or $60. $60 x $2.5 million barrels x 365 days = $54.75 billion. Now from the CIA world fact book we can see that Iran has a GNP of $564 billion. So by destroying Iran’s oil industry their GDP is cut by 10% just from the lost exports. But, the damage is much deeper than that, Iran subsidizes gasoline at $.10 a gallon and Iran consumes 1.425 million barrels of oil a day. With the oil industry destroyed the cars, trucks, trains, and power plants no longer run. That means no machinery, no electricity, and no modern economy. I can’t estimate what Iran’s GDP would decline to, but even the poorest nation on earth still has running cars and electricity. I think much of the population would either revolt or start walking for the boarders. They couldn’t import oil because we would destroy tankers, pipelines, and rolling stock. They couldn’t attack us in Iraq either, because with out gas they can’t logistically supply an attacking army. We on the other hand could perform a ground attack anywhere and they would be incapable of maneuvering in response. Not that I think we should do a ground attack, I don’t, but we would be well positioned if we needed to (airborne assaults on nuclear facilities).
"Will the U.S. be willing to take unilateral action of this magnitude? At this stage, I don’t believe that the EU will be supporting it. Nor will China or Russia."
You are right of course; the US will have to do this alone. We are the only ones with the Air Forces necessary to accomplish it. All it will take is the President ordering it done, the bombing will take less than 30 days and cost far less than the $50 billion it is going to cost the Iranians in direct loss of export dollars.
"The U.S. would need to ensure that there are contingency plans, prior to any action, in terms of the impact that such action would have on the price of oil and public opinion in the U.S., etc. Also, how long would it take to devise and implement such contingency plans?"
The US has a strategic petroleum reserve that is full (700 million barrels) and while we are using that we can do a crash program of developing oil shale, alcohol, and domestic drilling off shore and in Alaska where politics has prevented development before. As far as public opinion goes, much of Bush's loss of political support is due to his failure to prosecute the War on Terror to the utmost. Americans believe that if you have to go to war you must fight with everything you've got and get it over as soon as possible. Bush has not been doing this, he knows Iran, and Syria are both supporting terrorists and has done nothing. So if Bush just went to war with Iran and Syria his support will most likely rebound back up above 50%.
"I think the U.S. is and will be very capable of destroying major oil fields, pipelines, tankers, etc. as required. But I also think the U.S. will need to have a next step(s) after air strikes. These next steps include, for example, ensuring damage control within Iran, law and order issues within Iran, minimizing potential terrorist attacks that these air strikes will potentially lead to, and ensuring that there will be an interim government to take over from the mullahs immediately after they are toppled and so on… IMO, these must be planned out in detail before any military action. Bearing in mind that what happens in Iran will most definitely have a significant impact on the region and the world."
I believe that the mullacracy will take awhile to collapse. So at the same time America starts the war it announces that a New Iranian Army will be trained, Paid, and equipped in Iraq to take over Iran as soon as it is ready and Iranians are encouraged to apply. If we did this US Army forces may never be needed in Iran, or if they are just for a few Thunder Runs to topple the Mullahs, with the New Iranian Army mopping up and taking over. Done this way we could write the Iranian constitution and have the new army swear to it before they are allowed to join, this would make starting a new government much quicker.
"Lastly, will the current U.S. Administration be willing to embark on such major initiative as per your proposal before November or even whilst the current administration is in office?"
This I don't know, but I think it is at least possible. Bush has stepped so far away from the Bush Doctrine, by that I mean he still talks the talk, but no longer walks the walk. Some have said that he is just giving the EU and Iran enough rope to hang themselves, if so Iran's announcement that economic incentives wouldn't stop them from enriching Uranium may have been the sound of the trap door dropping. We will see in the days ahead.
I have grave concerns along these lines also. Good post.
Agreed. I believe he is through. Ain't a gonna study war no more, and hence we see the ascendancy suddenly of the ilk of Ted Carpenter.
Some have said that he is just giving the EU and Iran enough rope to hang themselves
They hung themselves long, long, long ago. We have given them so darn much rope, we can no longer be confident in a campaign to denuclearize them. And the rest of the Mideast which had hoped, albeit understatedly, that we would do just that, and long ago, ...are losing any belief in the U.S. in that regard. The failure of Israel [ considered America's proxy by the Islamics ] to clean Hezbollah's clock tolls loudly in their ears. The rhetoric of Iran's and China's North Korean proxy-state denunciations of the U.S. as Paper Tiger becomes believed.
... if so Iran's announcement that economic incentives wouldn't stop them from enriching Uranium may have been the sound of the trap door dropping.
This was only the 10,000th such trap door. At the comparable stage of what I term "Serial-Appeasement" in the 30's Hitler had occupied the Sudetenland, and had rearmed.
We will see in the days ahead.
Yes, unfortunately we will. At the current pace and direction, the Administration will lamely try to conduct economic sanctions as per the Carpenter appeasement/deterrent approach. Absent pre-emption by either us or Israel, it will fail, and a Nuclear Iran will nuke Israel. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. And they will coincidentally also arm Al-Quaeda. If they haven't already. So we will likely be simultaneously nuked because this administration will not secure the borders or the periphery...deeming such a simple thing..."a retreat" or a defeat of their global strategy anyways. The "strategy" that blithely and wrongly assumed we could make trading "partners" "stake-holders" in our national security.
That strategy was long ago defeated. 9-11 should have been the wake-up call. Xeno-malific Religion trumps economics. Every time. But they still obstinately refuse to admit it. As Tommy Franks said, "Hope is not a strategy."
We will all suffer for the materialists PC ideological zealotry.
And after we are nuked into non-existence, Russia and China will gleefully assert their global supremacy, and impose their design of a world government. All because our own government lost all sight of its duties and proper role...and the real nature and designs of our communist enemies.
What to me is really interesting is that we now have the State Dept. bloggers admit that they have systemmatically tried to discredit the legitimacy of the anonymously-leaked Chinese war plans, see GlitteringEye*
___________________________
*What passes for Analysis in FoggyBottom blogs is the classical liberal approach where they try to attack facts, but exhibit the classic mistake of omission and misrepresentation, over-stepping their claims...for example saying things to discredit the policies described, by claiming the alleged source... Chi Haotian isn't defense minister, (no, not currently he isn't, but we first, don't know when the speech was made, ans second, he in fact was Minister of Defense for the traditional maximum 8 years term...which is Hugh as we say here at FR) then he was duly replaced in 2003...by his hand-picked successor...that part is also omitted by these Foggy Bottom mis-directors.
I'm glad to see that you read my long post. I still hope that Bush will walk the walk before his term is up. So it's likely you will see this posted idea again and again as I've been hoping to start a Meme that will lead to action. What do you think of my strategic bombing idea? If we bomb Iran's oil industry out of existence, and put Iranians on foot and in the dark, they will have a hard time being a threat. And when we have cleaned up Iraq enough to free up troops, it should be easy to do a regime change.
I thought I remembered a time when CATO was conservative.
I think you have a good idea.
Thanks for posting it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.