MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
Bruce Riedel believes it would be catastrophic and futile to attempt to prevent Iran from going nuclear by military force. On the bright side, he argues, the preponderance of evidence suggests that Iran is deterrable through the logic of MAD:
Without doubt, throughout its history the Islamic Republic has behaved very disagreeably, but it has been careful to avoid taking actions that would lead to catastrophic consequences.
In the defining event of modern U.S.-Iran relations, for example, the hostage crisis of 1979–1981, Tehran acted in ways that were in clear violation of international law, but when it perceived a given course would provoke a massive violent American response, it desisted. In the summer of 1980 Iranian leaders repeatedly threatened to put the American hostages on trial for espionage. President Jimmy Carter made clear that any trials would produce a military response and Iran retreated. In the 1988 undeclared naval war in the Persian Gulf between the United States and Iran over reflagged Kuwaiti tankers, Iran attacked U.S. Navy ships but was careful to keep the conflict from escalating into a full-scale war. When the USS Vincennes inadvertently shot down an Iran Air civilian airliner, Ayatollah Khomeini sensed the conflict was getting out of control and agreed to a cease-fire with Iraq and the United States.
Throughout the Iran-Iraq war, Tehran also chose to avoid actions that would cross WMD thresholds. It was Iraq that first used chemical weapons on the battlefield, not Iran, and it was Iraq that first used missiles against Iranian cities. In the mid-1990s, when the United States determined Iran was behind the terrorist attack on the U.S. Air Force barracks at Khobar, Saudi Arabia, and warned Iran that any further attacks would prompt military retaliation, Iran desisted from carrying out operations on American military facilities in the Gulf and elsewhere. Today Iran is careful to limit its support of anti-American insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan to low-intensity conflict and asymmetric warfare to avoid a major American military response. Contrary to Netanyahu’s cries, Iran is not a crazy state. A nuclear security guarantee to Israel, if backed by a credible arsenal, will deter Tehran.
He proposes we accept Iran as a nuclear power while making it unambiguously clear that the first-use of these weapons would mean the end of Persian civilization:
The United States needs to bolster Israel’s capabilities now. The administration should take another look at extending the American nuclear umbrella. It is an idea that has long been floated. At the Camp David summit in 2000, then–Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak first raised the idea of a U.S.-Israeli mutual-defense treaty to provide Israel with a nuclear guarantee against Iran while sitting in a meeting with then-President Bill Clinton and two note takers (me and an Israeli). Clinton was positive about the idea if the summit succeeded. The proposal died when the Israeli-Palestinian peace process collapsed. But it is worth taking another look. And it is a policy prescription not too difficult to employ.
Of course, Israel’s own nuclear arsenal should be sufficient to deter Iran, but an American nuclear guarantee would add an extra measure of assurance to Israelis. If the United States guarantees Israel a nuclear umbrella, then Iran knows no matter what damage it may inflict on Israel, Washington will be able to retaliate with overwhelming force. Iran would have no delivery system capable of striking back at the U.S. homeland. It would be the target of both whatever residual capability Israel retained and the vast American nuclear arsenal. That is a deterrent indeed.
It would be made even stronger if the administration could develop a multinational nuclear deterrent for Israel by making Israel a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Under Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty, an attack on any member is an attack on the whole. As a NATO member, Israel would automatically enjoy the same nuclear umbrella as the existing twenty-eight members. Israel is already a member of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue and conducts limited military exercises with several NATO partners besides the United States, notably including both Greece and Turkey.
I'm not persuaded. I wish I were, because I am persuaded that a military strike on Iran might very well set this entire planet alight. But the solution he proposes gives me no comfort either.
First, one thing I can promise you: If Iran goes nuclear, Turkey will go nuclear. For sure. I'm beginning to suspect that's the Turkish end game in all of this--turning a blind eye to the Iranian nuclear program precisely because they want nukes of their own. That would give them the cover they need for tearing up the NPT.
It won't stop there. Every state in the region will go nuclear as fast as it can.
Second, even assuming Riedel is right, even assuming Iran is fundamentally rational (a mighty big leap of faith), MAD only barely worked. We were incredibly lucky. Most people don't know how close we came to nuclear war, for example, in 1983, in the wake of the downing of KAL 007. A freak sunlight alignment caused a perturbation in Soviet satellite data. The Soviets thought we'd launched a first strike. If Lieutenant Colonel Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov had followed his orders, I wouldn't be writing this and you wouldn't be reading this. It came down to that. (I talk about this episode in There is No Alternative.)
We just got lucky. No reasonable person could expect this kind of luck to hold indefinitely in a region like this. It's like banking on the idea that there hasn't been a major plane crash in the past few months, so there will never be a plane crash again. If every large actor in this region goes nuclear, it's inevitable that there will be a nuclear war.
Next idea?
- Comment (39)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
The lack of support for the popular uprising by the citizens of Iran is the most infuriating thing about this whole mess. Even if successful, I doubt we would end up with a new pal in that neighborhood, but, all indications are that it would become a country we could at least reason with.
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
One further point. By Riedel's own logic, if we manage to persuade Iran that there will be "catastrophic consequences" if it does not abandon its Manhattan Project, it will abandon it.
Seems to me that the time to test the proposition "Iran is rational and deterrable" is before it goes nuclear, not after.
Jul '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
This seems like a completely obvious outcome. What I can't understand is Russia's strategic thinking on this. Why would they back or turn a blind eye to a nuclear Iran if it inevitably means a nuclear Turkey in their backyard?
Aug '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
Iran might be rational. But it is rational to make, and act on, that assumption?
In other words, is the evidence of their raitonality so compelling as to risk them going nucelar? Put it that way and I'm beginning (?) to doubt Riedel's rationality.
Sep '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
Could you please compare and contrast the fear we (and the U.S.S.R. eventually) had about China becoming a nuclear power to Iran? In 100 words or less? Seriously, I understand the "we can't get lucky twice" idea. And China with nukes has been real force of evil for millions.
And just to be clear, I would support a full court press on regime change or war. But it is unlikely (yes?) thst that will happen in the next 2 to 6 years, what are we left with?
Pete
May '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
If we take Ahmadenijad at face value, then his worldview allows for the option of obliterating Israel at the cost of the total annihilation of his own people (to bring about the great war in which the last imam will conquer the world). I don't see how publicly stating that option helps him domestically, so odds are he believes it.
If Ahmadenijad does not already possess enough nukes to start a World War, then it's reasonable to assume his previous carefulness (Riedel's theory) could mean that he's buying time until he feels capable of unleashing the destruction he desires.
If Ahmadenijad already has enough nukes (not the advanced kind which enriched uranium is necessary for, but Hiroshima-style plutonium nukes), then it's possible that he's merely demonstrating a human instinct to continue living... until the point that his philosophies overpower his instincts. Then BOOM.
In short, there are still plenty of reasons to believe a MAD strategy would be ineffective. That would be a terrible gamble.
Jun '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
here's an idea: let's nuke them first before they nuke us first?
Aug '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
My problem with applying MAD to Iran is that the strategic game still admits to brinksmanship. It's easy to imagine Iran getting even bolder in its direct provocations and those of its proxies if they knew that we knew that they could turn Tel Aviv into a glass crater. We currently see this kind of misbehavior with North Korea, which does things like kidnap and murder South Koreans and Japanese just for the fun of it. Backwards induction is a scary thing.
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
Congratulations: You've just caused a Holocaust, unleashed World War Three, and given every state and sizable non-state actor--even ones previously benignly disposed to us--the biggest incentive to proliferation imaginable. No, Terry, that's not a great idea.
Jun '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
This strategy is based on having the US as a friend. I wouldn't take much comfort in that assumption, especially with Barry in office.
May '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
In order for belligerents to recognize the threat of MAD, they must at least possess a pinch of rationality and the willingness to remain in existence. I think the Iranian theocracy is an apocalyptic one. Ahmadinejad, the mullahs, and the Revolutionary Guard all subscribe to "martyr-centric Islam." I don't believe they would attack Israel, but an Iranian military equipped with nuclear weapons could very easily assert itself in the region in less than pleasant ways. The prospect of MAD would discourage the Guard from attacking Israel, but not local Arab states since none are so equipped to ensure reciprocal destruction.
May '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
Claire, the only place where I've read in depth arguments in favor of attacking Iran is Commentary Magazine. Of course, "nuking Iran" would be counterproductive, to put it mildly (its hardly necessary to lay waste to the entire country in order to end the threat posed by its government). But I'm willing to wager that sanctions will not work. What would be your advice with regard to dealing with the nuclear program, if you've got any?
Jun '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
Michael, for the most part I agree with your post, but one thing that I would mention is that the present Iranian power elite is robbing Iran of as much treasure as they can stuff in Swiss bank accounts, which would suggest that not everyone in Iran is martyr-centric. I don't know how true this is but a Iranina friend, who recently returned from Iran, said to me that the political leaders almost to a man have airplanes fuelled and ready to go should the people pick up their pitch forks.
Jul '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
Claire Berlinski, Ed.: One further point. By Riedel's own logic, if we manage to persuade Iran that there will be "catastrophic consequences" if it does not abandon its Manhattan Project, it will abandon it.
Seems to me that the time to test the proposition "Iran is rational and deterrable" is before it goes nuclear, not after. · Oct 3 at 3:47am
Isn't that the problem? Retaliatory nuclear strikes and/or invasions are entirely plausible, preemptive ones aren't. No one is likely to say, "If you don't give up your program we'll nuke you." What's the credible threat?
You're right though, Israel can't just trust to MAD. I don't think Bruce made a great case for the inherent futility of a strike. Delaying the program a few years is hardly a useless outcome, and is probably worth the fallout. On a side note, if everyone is going to view an Israeli strike as American supported, then we may as well help.
Jul '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
Claire Berlinski, Ed.
Congratulations: You've just caused a Holocaust, unleashed World War Three, and given every state and sizable non-state actor--even ones previously benignly disposed to us--the biggest incentive to proliferation imaginable. No, Terry, that's not a great idea. · Oct 3 at 9:22am
Claire, I'm not following you. I don't see how a surgical nuke strike on Iran's facilities unleashes a Holocaust or a WWIII.
Sep '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
Aaron Miller:
If Ahmadenijad already has enough nukes (not the advanced kind which enriched uranium is necessary for, but Hiroshima-style plutonium nukes), then it's possible that he's merely demonstrating a human instinct to continue living... until the point that his philosophies overpower his instincts. Then BOOM. · Oct 3 at 8:38am
Just for the record, plutonium nukes require more sophisticated tech than do uranium.
Sep '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
I don't know whether she's right about WW III. But such a strike would likely cause a serious blip in world oil supplies. And we ain't ready for that.
Jul '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
Patrick in Albuquerque
I don't know whether she's right about WW III. But such a strike would likely cause a serious blip in world oil supplies. And we ain't ready for that. · Oct 3 at 11:11am
So we should accept a nuclear-armed Iran just to avoid a disruption in oil supplies?
Sep '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
Riedel says "Iran would have no delivery system capable of striking back at the U.S. homeland." IMHO this is fallacious. For a smart adversary like Iran to smuggle bomb components into the US is probably not too difficult.
Jun '10
Re: MAD and the Middle East: No One's That Lucky Forever
Who says you have to go nuclear? Any action against Iran would first take-out radar, then air to command the skies, and then the nuclear facilities. Once that's done the people of Iran can do what they started to do in the summer of last year. The Iranian government is hanging by a thread and both the government and the governed know it, that's why the brutal response to the post-election demonstrations. The last thing the world needs is another unstable government with nukes. But as far as the Left is concerned we are the bad guys, so good luck getting the necessary support for any such action.