Obama must be ready to use force against Iran to end nuclear standoff
Ayatollah Khamenei must learn that he does not hold all the cards – a more credible threat of American military action is the only way to make that happen
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Photo: AFP
President Rouhani is the face, Ayatollah Khamenei is the master. When negotiating with a theological absolutist, excessive flexibility is not a good idea. And yet abundant flexibility is the cornerstone of Barack Obama’s present negotiating strategy. On Monday evening in Vienna, John Kerry announced a seven-month extension to the nuclear negotiations. He claimed it’s the common-sense approach.
It’s not. It’s a grievous error.
With another deadline expired, Khamenei is empowered. Recognising President Obama’s desperation, Khamenei has realised that waiting will bring no new penalties, and he is refusing to authorise Rouhani to make real concessions. And while some claim the negotiations are making progress, the record suggests otherwise. Iran continues to obstruct the IAEA by concealing its weaponisation programmes and demanding retention of its plutonium facility at Arak. Iran insists it be allowed to keep tens of thousands of centrifuges after any deal, and that the sanctions be removed immediately rather than progressively. Iran refuses a robust inspections regime.
The military option against Iran is inherently complicated. Much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is hardened against aerial attack. This means that any operation would, at best, only degrade Iran’s nuclear capability for three to four years. Still, that doesn’t mean the military option is false. The US military has highly advanced bunker penetration munitions and could launch multiple attacks. Of course, air strikes would also risk Iranian retaliation through missile attacks, small boat attacks in the Persian Gulf, or terrorism from the Islamic Republic’s intelligence and proxy networks.
Yet the risks of a nuclear armed Iran are far greater.
Were Iran to gain nuclear weapons, its violent revolutionary project would go radioactive. Today’s political situations in Lebanon and Iraq attest to what this would mean. Because in Beirut, Baghdad and beyond, Iran uses a toxic mix of violence and brutal political blackmail to advance its sectarian agenda: the expansion of Khomeini’s “jurist guardianship” ideology. With nuclear weapons, however, Iran’s hardliners would have the security umbrella to redouble these efforts. In basic terms, that would mean increased terrorism and a greatly destabilising arms race across the Middle East. After all, made paranoid by Iran’s Shia expansionism, the Sunni Arab monarchies would almost certainly pursue their own nuclear weapons. Middle Eastern political instability would thus find thermonuclear expression. And an emboldened nuclear Iran would also pose a greatly increased threat to the west. Consider that in 2011, in an action approved by senior officials, Iran tried to blow up a Washington DC restaurant. In short, a nuclear armed Iran must be prevented.
And if Mr Obama escalates his military threats, it can be.
While Iran’s hardliners are bold, they’re also realistic. Take Qassem Suleimani, Revolutionary Guards commander of Iran’s covert-action Quds Force. At present, Suleimani is pictured nearly every day in Iraq, where he’s leading Iran’s action against the Islamic State. He’s also responsible for many attacks on US and British forces in Iraq. In every sense, he’s a hardliner. But he’s also alert to the reality of US military power. And that reflects an underlying truth. Where Isil are frothing thugs, Iran’s rulers are masters of calculation, making strategy in view of the opportunities and risks of each moment. If Mr Obama is willing to increase his pressure on the hardliners, they will be deterred.
In that regard, President Obama should immediately deploy two more carrier strike groups to the Arabian Sea. Joining the current on-station group, the USS Carl Vinson, these forces would establish a US air dominance capability joined to robust fleet protection. At present, the US only has two carrier groups deployed globally. This broadcasts absent resolve. Complementing the new deployments, President Obama should also express his impatience with Iran’s diplomatic games. Abandoning his previous equivocation, in explicit language, Obama should state that he’ll use force against Iran’s nuclear program if a deal isn’t reached. Finally, Obama should explain that if Iran responds to any US action with major retaliation, he will respond with overwhelming force against Iranian military forces in the Persian Gulf and regime targets in Tehran. This is crucial; at the moment, Iran’s leaders think they’ve deterred the military option.
Witnessing Mr Obama’s change of tone and its physical substance, Iran’s hardliners would quickly take notice. Coupled to continued economic sanctions and Iran’s reduced government revenue from lower oil prices, Obama’s tangible threats would challenge Iran to reconsider its strategic calculations.
To be sure, serious diplomacy offers by far the best solution to this crisis. I supported last November’s six month negotiating window and I concede that any deal with have to allow Iran a low-enrichment baseline. Nevertheless, Khamenei must learn that he doesn’t hold the cards. For the cause of peace, Iran must find renewed contemplation of American military power.
No comments:
Post a Comment