-
Passport
Syria’s Lung-Eating Rebel Explains
-
Transitions
Is Venezuela Becoming a Failed State?
-
The Cable
Issa Subpoenas Pickering on Benghazi
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Tuesday, December 27, 2011 - 1:54 PM
Share
Background: Matthew Kroenig has written a provocative article in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, advocating a preventive war against Iran's nuclear facilities. I criticized his arguments in a previous post, and Kroenig offered this defense in response. Here is my rejoinder.
Matthew Kroenig's defense of his Foreign Affairs article calling for launching a preventive war against Iran does little to strengthen his case. He provides no additional evidence to explain why war is necessary; nor does he remedy the gaps and inconsistencies in his original analysis. Given that he's now had two swings at the same pitch, one may safely conclude that there is no good case for attacking Iran.
It is clear from the beginning of Kroenig's response that he misunderstood the central point of my critique. I accused him of employing the "classic blueprint" for justifying a preventive war, whereby one exaggerates the dangers of inaction, overstates the benefits of war, and understates the costs and risks of employing force. Kroenig responds by pointing out that "any decision to use force rests on the judgment that the costs of not using force outweigh the costs of using force," and he seems to think that this was the feature of his analysis to which I objected. Not so: my objection was to the one-sided way in which he conducted his assessment.
As I noted in my original post, Kroenig assumes that Iran's leaders are firmly committed to obtaining a nuclear weapon (as opposed to a latent capability), even though U.S. intelligence agencies still reject this conclusion. He provides no hard evidence demonstrating that the 2007 and 2011 National Intelligence Estimates on Iran are wrong. Furthermore, he assumes that a nuclear-armed Iran would unleash a series of fearsome consequences, even though we have no theory that explains how Iran could use its nuclear weapons for offensive purposes, and no examples of other nuclear-armed states doing so successfully in the past. He also assumes that rejecting the war option will force the United States to maintain a costly and dangerous "containment and deterrence regime" for decades. In short, when considering the "no-war" scenario, he consistently employs worst-case analysis.
When making the case for how a war against Iran will succeed, however, he switches to "best-case" assumptions about the short-term consequences, the dangers of escalation, and the long-term benefits, even though each of his forecasts is wide open to challenge. My point was not that Kroenig failed to discuss the costs and benefits of using or not using force; it was that if he had adopted a similar standard on both sides of the equation, his conclusion that war was the "least bad" option would fall apart.
Kroenig's piece in Foreign Affairs is entitled "Time to Attack Iran." However, he says in his response to me that he doesn't think "Washington should immediately launch a bolt-from-the-blue attack." Indeed, he now appears to concede that Iran might not be developing nuclear weapons and that we should wait to see if it takes certain measures (expels inspectors, enriches uranium to weapons grade levels, installs advanced centrifuges, etc.) before unleashing the dogs of war. But these arguments contradict both his title and his original argument, which is that preventive war is the least bad option and now is the time to do it. We are thus left wondering: is Iran developing nuclear weapons or not ? And if Kroenig isn't sure, is it really "Time to Attack?"
Kroenig tells us that "in the coming months, it is possible, even likely, that a U.S. President will be forced to make a gut-wrenching choice" between containment or military action (my emphasis), and he recommends we "begin building global support for (military action) in advance." As I've noted before, the danger here is that if you keep repeating that preventive war against Iran is necessary, people gradually become comfortable with the idea and assume that it is going to occur eventually. In fact, if we beat the war drums for months but don't attack, you can be confident that people like Kroenig will then arguethat U.S. credibility is on the line and we have to strike, lest those dangerous Iranians conclude we are paper tigers.
As in his original article, Kroenig's image of Iran is simplistic and contradictory. He portrays it as a highly capable and dangerously ambitious power, whose support for terrorism and proxy groups is supposedly restrained only by "fear of U.S. or Israeli retaliation." But he never describes Iran's actual capabilities (which are quite modest) or explains why the threat it poses to vital U.S. interests is grave enough to warrant rolling the iron dice of war. Nor does he discuss Iranian threat perceptions, internal politics, or foreign policy strategy (including how its policies have evolved over time), or consider the possibility that some of its activities (including its support for some extremist groups) are an asymmetric response to past U.S. efforts to isolate and marginalize it. Instead, his portrait of Iran is conveniently contradictory: as Paul Pillar puts it, for Kroenig "the same regime that if not attacked can be expected to do all sorts of highly aggressive things . . . turns into a calm paragon of caution, respectful of U.S. ‘redlines' once the United States starts waging war against it." If "knowing one's enemy" is a prerequisite for going to war, Kroenig has a lot of work to do.
Kroenig also misunderstands my comment about the possibility that an Iranian bomb might prompt others countries in the region to go nuclear. Contrary to what he writes, I did not say "we should not worry that Iran's proliferation will cause other states in the region to acquire nuclear weapons." Rather, my point was that if there were proliferation beyond Iran, it would give other states in the neighborhood the ability to deter Iran and make it impossible for Tehran to wield the coercive leverage that Kroenig (not me) thinks it would gain by building a bomb. To be clear: I think it would be better if Iran and its neighbors stayed on this side of the nuclear threshold. But unlike Kroenig, I'm not prepared to panic and start a major war at the possibility that they won't.
I remain baffled by Kroenig's belief that crossing the nuclear threshold would give Iran a credible capacity to push the United States around by making nuclear threats. He repeats his claim that a "nuclear-armed Iran could threaten nuclear war in response to any U.S. initiative in the Middle East," but he fails to explain why such actions would work. Iran's leaders could make whatever threats they wished, of course, but the salient question is whether we would have to take those threats seriously. Does Kroenig think Iran could veto a new U.S. initiative to mediate Israeli-Palestinian peace, or to organize a new regional peace conference, by threatening to rain warheads down upon us? Does he believe Iran could credibly threaten to attack us if we wanted to conduct a military exercise with a key regional ally, or if the Pentagon decided to redeploy forces somewhere in the area, or if Washington launched a new initiative to promote democracy and human rights in the region?
I repeat my original point: if it would be that easy for a nuclear-armed Iran to coerce the United States into doing things it does not want to do, then why haven't other nuclear powers been able to do that to us in the past? By Kroenig's logic, the Soviet Union should have had a field day pushing us around during the Cold War. But that did not happen; in fact, the Soviets never even tried to use their huge nuclear arsenal to coerce us. The reason, of course, is that Soviet threats would not have been credible because any attempt to carry them out would have led to national suicide. The same logic applies to Iran. We know it, and so do they, which is why this familiar bogeyman should not be taken seriously.
Kroenig's claim that failure to strike soon will force the United States to invest vast sums on a "containment and deterrence regime" is equally unconvincing. He says "when the United States has imposed deterrence regimes in the past we have dedicated great economic, military, and political resources to the task." Yes, but that was because the United States was seeking to contain and deter theUSSR, a major power rival with substantial industrial capacity, a large andpowerful mass army, some significant allies, and (eventually) a vast nuclear arsenal of its own. Iran is a minor power by comparison, and will never be in the same league as the Soviet Union was.
Even more importantly, Kroenig seems to have forgotten that the United States already has a significant military presence in the Gulf region, and additional forces allocated to intervening there when necessary. These forces, and the security ties that they support, long predate Iran's nuclear program, and given Iran's modest conventional capabilities, they provide the necessary ingredients for a successful containment regime for the foreseeable future. I might add that Kroenig never identifies the exorbitant additional measures that he believes would be necessary if we fail to strike soon. In short, even if Iran does get nuclear weapons someday, there is little need to augment our existing force structure or alter our alliance relationships in any meaningful way. And by the way: the fact that a few unnamed Washington think tanks are in favor of "massive increases in our commitments to the region" doesn't mean that this is a sound idea, because think tanks inside the Beltway often propose dubious ideas, as we learned in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Kroenig actually goes so far as to make the foolish argument that "opponents of a bombing campaign are not proponents of peace, but rather by default they are advocates of a multibillion dollar, decades-long U.S. commitment to the security of the Middle East." (Readers with good memories will recall that this same argument was used to explain why we could not contain SaddamHussein in perpetuity, but had to overthrow him instead). But this charge makes sense only if you believe that attacking Iran would lead us to end our "decades-long U.S. commitment to the security of the Middle East." Does Kroenig think whacking Iran would enable the United States to withdraw completely from the region, terminate our security partnerships with Israel, Jordan, and assorted Persian Gulf states, and disband the Rapid Deployment Force? I doubt it. Moreover, if we do attack Iran, we could easily find ourselves in a protracted conflict that would make the Middle East a more dangerous and unstable region. This would neither be good for the United States nor enable us to reduce our security commitments there.
The bottom line is that the United States is going to remain committed to defending its interests in the Persian Gulf--whether we go to war with Iran or not--and the price tag for doing so is likely to be roughly similar whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not. It is therefore disingenuous for Kroenig to suggest that the opponents of war are advocating a costly long-term commitment to the region but the proponents of preventive war are trying to save money and reduce our defense burdens.
Kroenig says he is surprised by my charge that he glossed over the risks of a military campaign. In response, he says that he "fully engaged" with the many negative consequences of an attack and "proposed a mitigation strategy" for each one. But identifying downsides and "proposing" some mitigating countermeasures is insufficient: one has to explain in considerable detail how they would work and think seriously about the various ways that this best case might go wrong.
Let's assume, however, that all goes according to plan and we knock out virtually all of Iran's nuclear facilities. As Kroenig acknowledges in his Foreign Affairs article, even a completely successful war would not end Iran's capability to build nuclear weapons once and for all. We would merely have bought ourselves a few years, because the Iranians--who would probably be mad as hornets--would surely set out to build nuclear weapons in a secure location to deter the United States from attacking their homeland again. All of this is to say that we cannot prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons if it wants them badly enough, and attacking them in the immediate future is likely to make them want those weapons even more. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent, after all, which is why Israel, the United States, and several other countries have nuclear arsenals today and no intention of getting rid of them anytime soon.
Finally, it is striking that Kroenig's response does not engage the legal or moral implications that I raised in my original critique. It appears that he remains untroubled by the fact that many innocent people will die and many more will be wounded if the United States follows his advice to launch a major bombing campaign against Iran. He seems equally at ease with the ideathat the United States would be launching an unprovoked war of aggression, which would be in clear violation of international law. And still people wonder: "why do they hate us?"
If we strike Iran it will be war. The GCC nations that are quite closer to Iran than Israel don't support a strike at this time. The reasons given are doubts that Iran is actually developing nuclear weapon capability (I believe they are), if they are the weapon(s) have no utility (other than giving them to a non-state terrorist organization) and it would be a rallying point for a regime that is otherwise very unpopular with it's people (the lack of popularity is held by a slim majority, mostly young, politically dubious and unfocused).
If we strike it will mean war. If we go to war it would be best to do so with a declaration of war. Getting the GCC members support and not waiting or seeking UN approval is as necessary. Another thing to keep in mind is our NATO allies will not help in a land war on Iranian territory. What they did in Libya is not the new dawn of a military resurgence of British and French power. Iran has 10 times the population that Libya does and there would be precious few Iranians supporting us.
Striking Iran's nuclear sites means war. That means regime change. That means occupation. A Desert Storm type operation followed up by a Southern Watch type against Iran would be viable if we had a functional Congress and Presidency that was not perpetually running for re-election as has been the case since at least 2006.
Waging war successfully means having the political will to follow through. We have dropped the ball in Iraq. There is a nascent peace negotiation format developing with the Taliban. If our gov't with the passive consent of our citizens are willing to sit down and speak with the Islamist equivalent of the Khmer Rouge then I would say we do not have the political will or capital to strike Iran.
There isn't going to be a war. Iran knows that
Its pretty obvious that the US does not have the resources of will to carry out a military campaign against Iran. Iran knows this too. All talk of war with Iran means just airstrikes. Airstrikes won't do squat to affect the regime other than reinforce its grip on the nation.
The only purpose behind Iran's provocative actions are precisely as you said, "a rallying point for a regime that is otherwise very unpopular with it's people"
Its very easy to doubt Iran's nuclear weapons production capability because they have done so much to wear it on their sleeves. The same as Iraq and North Korea. The difference being North Korea did everyone a favor by showing to the world it was bluffing with a failure of a nuclear test.
Spood's addiction to self humiliation
Seriously Spood,
After making such an idiot of yourself already, isn't it time you rethought your assinine thesis and got a real education?
>> The only purpose behind Iran's provocative actions are precisely as you said, "a rallying point for a regime that is otherwise very unpopular with it's people"
Iran's actions are only perceived as provocative from the point of view of an empire that cannot tolerate an oil rich state maintaining it's independence. The US invaded and occupied 2 states along it's borders and lobbied frantically for sanctions against Iran based on lies - yet your scrambled mind blames Iran for being provicateurs?
What are you going to do, claim you are an international diplomat now or bring in some sock puppets?
How about slinging some ad hominem. I don't believe Israel should be a smoking crater, so I must be lying. Is that how it goes?
"Iran's actions are only perceived as provocative from the point of view of an empire that cannot tolerate an oil rich state maintaining it's independence. The US invaded and occupied 2 states along it's borders and lobbied frantically for sanctions against Iran based on lies - yet your scrambled mind blames Iran for being provicateurs?"
Because everyone is picking on Iran for shits and giggles. We are really going to war now after leaving Iraq? After having just vacated such a great launching point for attacks on them? The only way this makes sense is if your brain is addled with conspiracy theories and have slogans on the brain.
So Iran isn't having trouble keeping order domestically? A conflict would not discredit the opposition party? Who are you kidding?
You don't really bother to think this stuff through to a logical conclusion. If its the party line for anti-American, anti-Israel actions, you have to jump right on that bandwagon.
There isn't going to be a war with Iran, Iran isn't really making nukes. Anything after that is just blowing smoke. It is doubtful you will respond in an intelligent manner here.
"Its pretty obvious that the US does not have the resources of will to carry out a military campaign against Iran. Iran knows this too. All talk of war with Iran means just airstrikes. Airstrikes won't do squat to affect the regime other than reinforce its grip on the nation."
Really? Because we had plenty of resources to not only invade Iraq, but to maintain a large, powerful military garrison there for 10 years. And now we're pulling out of Iraq and taking those resources out with us. It would be relatively easy (although admittedly costly) to simply redirect those resources and march our exiting troops back across Iraq and into Iran.
Stating that airstrikes are meaningless is just stupid. It depends on what you strike and when you strike it. For instance, taking a busload of Iranian nuclear scientists as part of a coordinated strategy which includes strikes on their centrifuges and other nuclear facilities would not only set them back long enough to implement a more permanent solution, but would also deter other nuclear scientists from wanting to risk their lives to help Iran start a new nuclear program.
>>. I don't believe Israel should be a smoking crater, so I must be lying. Is that how it goes?
Yo just said that Iran Is not producing nukes, so how would Israell become a smoking crater without being nuked?
I k ow logic and really aren't your forte, but you might want to think about that.
>> Because everyone is picking on Iran for shits and giggles.
Not for shits and giggles, but to satisfy Israel.
>> After having just vacated such a great launching point for attacks on them?
Why would we need to launch an attack from Iraq, especially an aerial attack? If anything. The troops in Iraq were sitting ducks. By getting the. Out of harms way, it clears the path for such an attack.
>> So Iran isn't having trouble keeping order domestically? A conflict would not discredit the opposition party? Who are you kidding?
Stupid argument. Governments all over the world, including Europe are having the same problem. Are the Also inviting bomb attacks on their territory to hang onto power? Hal stood can you possibly be Spood.
Do you expect believe that you and onwely you can see through this dastardly Iranian
Lot to sucker the US into attacking them?
You're the one who hasn't bothered to think this stuff through to a logical conclusion. You're so drunk on Zionist hysteria, that you can't see the sheer stupidity and absurdity of your moknbst theories.
I think the author has seriously underestimated the serious threats that Iran can pose to the region.His point that Iran is a relatively small power compared to USSR is not valid.There are other aspects of Iran's nuclearisation.We forget that Iran is a Shia nation who has got the extreme version of politically exploited Shia Islam on its bayonet, pointing it to anyone worldwide! It is not the sinlge Iran that would pose serious threats, it would be rather the summative effect of Iran via the shia political net work in the region and its possible alliance with other anit-US forces in the region like Pakistan, China, Russia and Syria. This in combination can constitute a serious political and military force under the red slogan of Shia Islam plus other extreme versions of Islam prevalent in the region that can bring USA to its kness just in the same fashion as Sunni Islam with American alliance pushed the USSR to its brink not long ago! The mistake being made here is considering and evaluating Iranian threat as a single , isolated regional threat which is wrong. We are forgetting the chain of possible events and alliances plus the fire of Shia Islam which can swallow things as far as Florida mountains!!
The solution is what we have been doing so far
Iran does not deserve airstrikes. Its what the regime wants. Its what they have been angling for.
We are far better off going through the regional cold war that has been going on for a while. Keep it limited to the covert ops, malicious computer viruses, mysterious explosions and disappearances.
>> The solution is what we have been doing so far Iran does not deserve airstrikes. Its what the regime wants.
Stupid argument. This is typical Western narcissism - the belief that everything Iran does is about the US and Israel and that nothing they do is in their own interests.
>> Keep it limited to the covert ops, malicious computer viruses, mysterious explosions and disappearances.
How surprising! Another rabbis Israeli shill advocating for terrorism.
Iran doesn't pose any threat to he region Maiwand
After all, Iran has not attacked or invaded anyone in 270 years.
What Iran threatens is US and Israeli dominance if the region. Then again, the US handed Iraq to Iran in a plate.
>> .We forget that Iran is a Shia nation who has got the extreme version of politically exploited Shia Islam on its bayonet, pointing it to anyone worldwide
Rubbish. Not only has Walt refuted the absurdity of Iran holding anyone to ransom, but as I explained, Iran has not attacked anyone in centuries.
>> It is not the sinlge Iran that would pose serious threats, it would be rather the summative effect of Iran via the shia political net work in the region and its possible alliance with other anit-US forces in the region like Pakistan, China, Russia and Syria.
So what you really mean is that Iran could potentially become a regional power and thrive politically and economically, and that such an outcome Infuriates you.
>> We are forgetting the chain of possible events and alliances plus the fire of Shia Islam which can swallow things as far as Florida mountains!!
Stupid, ignorant and pure hysteria.
Slinging insults is not an intelligent form of disputing a remark.
> the belief that everything Iran does is about the US and Israel and that nothing they do is in their own interests.
You are the one who is claiming the US and Israel are trying to start a war. I guess that is "narcissism on your part". Kind of typical of people who see AIPAC under their beds.
So is it in Iran's interest to be building nukes now? Or at least give the impression that it is a possibility? Is this suddenly an argument as to why they should have them?
Iran's interest are in a conflict. Peace is about the worst thing for a dictatorship. Without either an internal or external conflict, people tend notice all of the little flaws in a regime. Even those allegedly "stable" dictatorships in the region have to whip up hatreds of an outside foe (Israel and the US worked nicely as the "go to" outside enemy for most regimes). Its why they don't have a single free newspaper or moderate dissent party but thousands of Islamcist madrassas.
There is no conceivable way the US can do much to Iran besides some token action. Its so obvious even Walt picked up on it. Israel can't do much either to them. So how could either of them possibly gain much from trying to whip up a war against Iran? Oh wait, your arguments aren't about common sense. Its about sticking to slogans and misrepresentations. Never mind.
>>How surprising! Another rabbis Israeli shill advocating for terrorism.
Not surprising ad hominem in place of an intelligent response. What else is new?
>>After all, Iran has not attacked or invaded anyone in 270 years
Not counting its obvious use of proxy forces in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza as well as supporting international terrorism since 1979. So chalk that up to a half-truth.
>>What Iran threatens is US and Israeli dominance if the region. Then again, the US handed Iraq to Iran in a plate.
So you are claiming Iran IS trying to build nukes in order to "even the balance"?
Israel's dominance? Other than having nuclear weapons Israel hardly dominates the region. You rely on slogans rather than reality.
The dominating country in the region would be Saudi Arabia. They have the money, the oil and the influence to be Iran's real rival. They are also allied with the US. But of course you can't blame arab countries for fomenting conflict when you can find an excuse to blame Israel.
We did make it easier for Iran to act with impunity in Iraq. You are making an argument for the US to have stayed in Iraq?
>> We are forgetting the chain of possible events and alliances plus the fire of Shia Islam which can swallow things as far as Florida mountains!!
> Stupid, ignorant and pure hysteria.
The only truthful thing you said. Too bad it was mired in a sea of misrepresentations, phony arguments and at least one outright fib.
@Neoleft, You have described yourself in your own cheap words!!
I understand everybody is entitled to express his views through logic and argument , but no one shall be allowed to bark like an Iranian dog, the common mode of expression Irani evil Mullahs and Akhunds use in their anti-west rhetoric and, beyond doubt, u belong to the fascist section of Pasdaran ( The guardians) who constitute an army of Persian Fascism and Shia Nazism under the banner of rogue and eqaully insane Irani Mullahs, who , undoubtedly will face the same fate as the one Hitler met for his German Nazism. The ideology and mindset of Iranian Nazism is very parallel to and equally ferocious like Hitler's Nazism! Its a threat to the region and the world. U claim that Iran has not attached any nation in many centuries,Its true and we wont expect Iran to do so as its the most coward nation on earth who tries to live under the disguise of Shia extremist Political Islam! However, Iran behaves like a virus and has been trying to spread around its contagious philosophy of Persian Fascism regionally and has been terrorising its own civilians which is the sign of utmost cowardice!! Dont get scared of bombs my baby, I am sure u will soon be buried with ur evil Hitlers, the political clowns of Middle East!!!!
>> You are the one who is claiming the US and Israel are trying to start a war. I guess that is "narcissism on your part". Kind of typical of people who see AIPAC under their beds.
AIPAC has already ad otted they pull the strings in Washington, so they apparently also see AIPAC under their beds.
>> So is it in Iran's interest to be building nukes now? Or at least give the impression that it is a possibility? Is this suddenly an argument as to why they should have them?
Get educated Spood.
1. iran's leaders have said they do not believe it is in their interests to have nukes because nukes are next to useless
2. All 16 US intelligence agencies have concluded that Iran has not even decided to build nukes, so that is clearly not the impression Iran has been giving, other than to your scrambled brain.
>>. Peace is about the worst thing for a dictatorship. Without either an internal or external conflict, people tend notice all of the little flaws in a regime.
False. The Saudi dictatorship has enjoyed decades of unchallenged power without conflict.
>> So how could either of them possibly gain much from trying to whip up a war against Iran? Oh wait, your arguments aren't about common sense. Its about sticking to slogans and misrepresentations. Never mind.
You almost have a point. The logical flaws are synonymous with militaristic states. The US and Israel are the states that actually thrive on inflict and mi,Italy interventionism, even if it is counter productive. Remember that Bush Jnr came to office believing that a US president can only be great if he is a wartime president.
Similalrly, Israel is always looking for a excuse to launch a new war. Their threats against Iran and Lebanon are issues almost once a week. Meir Dagan began speaking out about the lunacy of attacking Iran as soon as he left office because he obviously fears the Israelp government is crazy enought to try it.
>>Not counting its obvious use of proxy forces in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza as well as supporting international terrorism since 1979. So chalk that up to a half-truth.
By that logic the US is at war with Lebanon (becaus it arms Lebanon's enemy), and at war with Israel,because it finances the PLO.
>> So you are claiming Iran IS trying to build nukes in order to "even the balance"?
No, it is doing so without building nukes. The US handed Iraq to Iran, which they did so without intending to, and have turned Iran into a major regional power,
>> Other than having nuclear weapons Israel hardly dominates the region. You rely on slogans rather than reality.
Of course it does and it does so not just with nukes, but through it's military power.
>> The dominating country in the region would be Saudi Arabia.
Their influence is specifically limited to Sunni Arab states, and their leaders fear Iran's rise in the region, because of the influence they may exert over the Shiite faction in SaudiArabia. They might be allied with the US, but exert owners near the influence that Israel does.
>> We did make it easier for Iran to act with impunity in Iraq. You are making an argument for the US to have stayed in Iraq?
No, I am making th argument that going into Iraq was a dumb idea.
Maiwand! The fake Persian (aka hasbra toll)
There is no such thing as Iranian Nazis, but interestingly,neo nazies have taken to waving Israeli flags and their demonstrations,
Two excellent articles on the absurdity of the US going to war against Iran. I am convinced that the US decided in 2007 against doing this option. The danger of Koenig's and other neocons' arguments for war is, as Walt points out, it creates a sense of inevitability in the minds of the people unless these crazed ideas are relentlessly opposed. Maybe high level leaders have decided that such a war is not a good idea, but that does not necessarily mean that unexpected circumstances might trigger a confrontation that escalates into one.
Not too worried about Israel because of the logistical problems they quite simply lack the ability to cause any significant damage to Iran's military capacity. They will just keep a talking loud, hoping to provoke some crisis that might suck in the US. I suspect the Iranians pretty much accept that Netanyahu and Barak's threats are empty bluster.
If the US and Israel continue with their subversion, sabotage and assassination of Iranian nationals, the Iranians might at sometime repay the favor -- this would be mistake for them since it might create an unplanned circumstance that escalates into war.
'this charge makes sense only if you believe that attacking Iran would lead us to end our "decades-long U.S. commitment to the security of the Middle East."'
While the war is peace argument is utterly nonsense, I do think, that a US attack on Ian will make the US to leave the Persian gulf. I think, that indeed would be the most plausible consequence of a US war of aggression against Iran.
I'm pretty sure that Iran would declare that the war would not end before that goal is reached and they would stick to it. Of course, how quickly the US is running away from the Persian gulf then is left open to speculation because this depends on the wisdom of the US leaders, but I'm pretty sure the US would run away sooner or later. So, of course, I do not neccessarily think that the Iranian shia would accomplish the goal to chase the US out of the Persian gulf in a quick eight-year-war like the Iraqi Shia id dit, but I'm quite sure that after some ten to twenty years of permanent Shia attacks against the ships and bases of the US in the Persian gulf the US will leave the region, so that the Persian gulf war ends and oil becomes cheaper again. I'm pretty sure, the strong faith of the Shia in the just resistance of Imam Ali against tyranny will lead them to this victory.
So that's what I think of a US war against Iran would end in a decade or two.
What wonders me a bit is that Matthew Kroenig didn't tell how he thinks the scenario for the US capitulation in the Persian gulf would look like. I can't imagine that he really believes the US will be victorious against Iran. Iran is larger than Iraq and Afghanistan together, a lot better armed and industrialized and the Iranian faith is the faith of the just resistance of Imam Ali against the tyrants. When the US starts a war of aggression against Iran, it will be clear to everyone once again who the tyrant is.
Why the US might be forced to leave the Persian Gulf after a war
Kroenig could be right but he doesn't seem to know why. If the US launched an air attack against Iran one could reasonably assume that Iran would fire at both the attacking aircraft and US warships stationed in the Gulf.
Iran has been buying Russian built sunburn (ss-n-22) antiship cruise missiles and may have also purchased the latest model yakhonts. These are very fast (2 - 2.5 x the speed of sound or .7 to .9 km/sec). Think about this, the missile which can fly just 10 ft above the surface will cover about 2 miles in about 3 seconds. They carry warheads of 500 to 700 pounds of explosives. They also have a range of 100 miles for the sunburn and 150 for the yakhonts. In short any US warship in the gulf is vulnerable.
Though these missiles have never been tested in combat, many analysts believe that they would penetrate the Aegis missile defense systems employed by the US. The missile is not just a passive delivery vehicle for the high explosives but is also a kinetic weapon; ie it's very high impact velocity is probably sufficient to penetrate the hull of US warships which means the explosives can be timed to detonate after entry through the hull. Frigates, destroyers and cruisers are likely highly vulnerable and the navy is worried that they could inflict irreversible damage to an aircraft carrier.
In any case one of the possible outcomes of war against Iran, is that it will be established that the US navy is defenseless while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. If we lost a half dozen warships and a 1000 or so sailors, I suspect we would remove the 5TH fleet from that region of the world.
It's not ony the Sunburn, the problem is much larger
I'm not really convinced that Iran has got the Sunburn. For sure, some Russian Sunburn missiles - or their Chinese equivalent - would be perfect to sink a whole US carrier group in the gulf, but that's by far not the only option. Iran has a lot of different options to hunt US ships and troops in the gulf.
One is to use domestically made ballistic missiles like the Shahab and Fajr to fire them on US bases in the region. If they come in large numbers, the bases will be hurt. If they hit some oil installations nearby in Qatar, Bahrain or Kuwait, Iran can call it collateral damage. Add to this some Iranian efforts to puts mines and torpedos into the straights of Hormuz, and I'm sure the oil price will react heavily. As these missiles and weapons are produced domestically, Iran can fire them indefinitely, day after day, for years and years, as long as Iran can produce them.
Another option to hunt US ships is for example the Iranian Noor missile, a domestically made variant of the Chinese C-802, that Hisbollah used 2006 (hitting the INS Hanit) to keep Israel away from Lebanese coasts. The clue is that Iran produces this missile domestically for a while already and I guess they do it in rather large numbers. The Aegis system may well be capable of intercepting some Noor missiles, but when they come in in too lage numbers, they simply overload the Aegis system. Usually a commander would avoid this by being away from the coast where they are fired from, however the Persian gulf is just 200 miles wide, so the only option is either flee the gulf or attacking the attackers positions.
And of course, after such an experience I would Iran expect to scramble together some nuclear bombs. According to the IAEA Iran is currently able to produce about 10 centifugues per day. It will be quick to make some nuclear devices - and of course, in he case of a previous US attack on Iran, Iran had the best arguments to convince the international community that it needs nukes to deter the rogue states USA and Israel.
As the Noor missiles are small as most of Irans weapons systems the only real way to attack them is occupying the Iranian coastal areas. If the US will do that, it will make it's soldiers targets on the ground in Iran, just like they were targets in Iraq and are still in Afghanistan. I believe Iran has the capability of making US troops occupying Iranian soil difficult just as Hisbollah made it difficult for Israel to occupy Lebanee soil.
For US the only way to get rid of such Iranian harassment of it's occupying forces would be to completely occupy Iran, just as the US did it with Iraq 2006. The problem with this option is that Iran is much larger than Iraq, and has a lot more sophisticated weapons for guerilla tactics. When the US manages to occupy Iran, the Shia resistance could be organzied from Kerbala in Iraq. If the US wants to stop that, the US would need to reoccupy Iraq again. And probably the US would also need to occupy Syria and defeat Hisbollah. O the northern front in Afghanistan the US would have to expect Iran to align with the Afghan resistance, the Taliban, and probably also Pakistan betting on Taliban victory all together against the US.
So, if the US and a coalition of the willing would do all this, and I think the US is unlikely to do it, because it would need at least have a milion of soldiers in theater, how long the US could sustain such an operation? I think the maximum would be some ten or twenty years, even if the US would reintroduce the draft to get enough soldiers, and then the US would be competely bancrupt.
I think the Russians would not object this way of history very much - the U.S. completely bancrupting and exhausting itself in just another war for Israel, but they would help Iran to keep on fighting to achieve the goal of bringing the US down. I think, if the US wants to go down this road, the Iranian leadership will simply tell the US: bring it on, just like the victorious Iraqi resistance did it. Finally, when the US remarks that the choice is between bancrupt and leaving the Persian gulf, I suspect the US will leave.
So, the military option has the problem, that the US has no goodlooking path to win the war, if Iran says "bring it on!" I think that is the only reason why their hasn't been a war against Iran, yet. US generals know that a war against Iran would be a very tough task. But who knows what the crazies in Washington and Tel-Aviv will do next? Just look at Matthew Kroenig.
An excellent assessment.
The financial constraints alone will be insurmountable. Particularly considering that the US would have to borrow 100% of the money for this war. Where would it come from the 3+ Trillion $ needed for this? China (somewhat inexplicably) continues to loan us money for our misadventures in the Middle East. But this would do so much damage to their economy along with the rest of the planet that I have a hard time believing that they would bankroll any of it. The Sunni states do not have anywhere near the $ to cover the costs and at this point i think even us American Sheeple dont believe that this war will 'pay for itself' considering the past 9 years in Iraq.
Then there are the military questions...
Really necessary and really irrelevant when it comes to American foreign policy. Good Work !
avioes venda
It's a horrendous idea. Iran and America can easily settle our differences in the short term, if we can communicate without the usual monied interpreters. Iran has a wonderful future, the Zionists are finished. Perhaps, Americans should seek a grand bargain, yet again? An oil deal with a major Islamic provider(#2)? They have a much better political system then the old oil deal, the backwards Saudis and you know who is on the way to the dustbin of history. Never was a good bet. A realist makes a deal and avoids the sunburn.
Hej!
Superb rebuttal Professor Walt
What your rebuttal and subsequent response to Kroenig has exposed is how lacking such debate is missing from mainseam discourse. When the so called "experts" are challenged about their status quo, but vacuous assertions, they fall into a heap, scramble to patch up their positions and as you pointed out, contradict themselves.
This is why the establishment is so fearful of Ron Paul. He blows holes in the anti Iranian narrative during the debates and leaves the mainstream candidates looking like ignoramuses.
The path to a nuclear safe MiddleEast is clear.
The path -- which was first suggested by Iran in 1974 --- is to create a nuclear free zone.
All countries in the region agree to this path --- except one --- Israel.
If we can get Israel to agree, then a 'fail safe' nuclear free MiddleEast is 'done deal'.
No need for war and all it's carnage and cost.
So -- maximum efforts should be directed at convincing Israel to agree.
Would that not be a better way??
No carnage!! No cost!!
But wait -- 65% of Israelies already support the creation of such a zone.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/695.php?nid=&id=&pnt=695&lb=brme
We really don't even need to convince the Israelies.
Am I missing something here????
this is a total demolition Kroenig's propaganda. thanks
demolition of..
But Walt isn't any more correct. You guys are employing a false dichotomy here.
They are both making some pretty silly assertions.
Nothing about Iran's nuclear program is even close to what is usually the most successful route towards such things. It has more in common with the games of nuclear "chicken" played by wannabes like North Korea and Saddam's Iraq.
Even acknowledged rogue state and terrorism patron Libya was far more discreet (and much further along) than Iran ever was. Did anyone discuss bombing Libya when they were enriching uranium? No. Because nobody knew what the hell Moamar was doing. Its not like the US couldn't cough up an excuse to bomb Libya at any given time.
What has been going on here has been mostly a circle jerk of half-baked assumptions, slogans and conspiracy mongering.
Is there going to be a war with Iran? Not bloody likely.
Airstrikes? Probably not
Iran stepping up tensions in the area? undoubtedly.
Who has the most to gain with a limited war with the West? Iran.
-It will allow them to impede oil tankers in the Persian Gulf
-reinforce the faltering regime with an outside enemy
-and given the limited resources of the US, NATO and ME forces provide an easy conflict to claim victory over and gain international prestige as the people who gave the West a black eye.
So what does Israel have to gain with a war with Iran?
Not a heck of a lot. Its not even the regional rival to Iran. Saudi Arabia fits that bill more easily. Iran out of the way means they completely dominate the region.
Talk of war from Bibi is the same as it is for the GOP. Bullshit to appeal to the voters. They neither have the means nor the will to make good on it. Iran's leadership knows this. Everyone knows this (except for most of you guys).
Dude, you are seriously and zealously wasting your time trying to alter the minds of posters in here. I just do not agree with Kroenig's justification for going to the war. Iran wants it because, we have seen lately what fate the likes of Qaddhafi suffered after relinquishing its nuclear program. We also know that joining a nuclear club is the best deterrent, as you see how the dictator in North Korea was able to die a natural death. Besides, Walt offers nuances
in his analysis-the ones that were missing in the outset of the Gulf War II while Kroenig just gloss around these issues.
I do not really want to engage in a dialogue with you, but, are you implying that Iran wants to engage in a limited war with the NATO or the US forces in the region? As you asserted, Iran may benefit from a limited war in terms of acquiring prestige and influence. However, I do not agree that Iran will engage in a war just to gain these rather vague objectives.
Getting into a war with Iran is too big a risk from a number of perspectives. Containment is definitely the best strategy for now. John
If this country could contain Stalin( a lunitic if you have read some histroy on him) without getting into WWIII, then Iran, even if it somehow developed the bomb should be easy to control. If this country manages to find a reason to to attack Iran I wonder how those 99% would react to the price of gas going to over 5 dollars a gallon. Would they be calm and peaceful? Would they buy the B.S.? A gamble not worth taking.
Most inept analysis I've ever read
Clearly Walt has some personal (borderline obsessive) issues with Kroenig. The fact and reality is the Iran is trying to get a bomb and containing the Iranian threat and all its associated issues, whether it is nuclear proliferation or an emboldened Iran, is going to be far more costly than a pinpointed strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Yes people will die, but it will not be the mass slaughter of innocent civilians that Walt rants about. If he sincerely believes that then he has greatly misjudged the quality of our military. If he thinks that a nuclear Iran is a non-issue that can successfully be dissuaded by sanctions (which it will pass along the costs of to the Iranian population), then frankly he is a moron. Walt's moronic isolationist policy reminds me of the nutcase Ron Paul. Maybe if he wins we will know who the next SecDef is, though if either of those nutjobs had their way, they would probably abolish the DoD entirely.
My God I have little faith in Yale's Ph D programs but if that is the best you have to offer then so be it. The great Walt has just demolished some minor Assistant Prof from wherever. It was almost embarrassing to see how easy it was for Walt to reduce this twit to insignificance. At first I thought it was unfair that Walt engaged Kroenig in this debate. Almost painful to watch a pro reduce an amateur in combat. But if Kroenig wants the big dollars from the neocon think tanks then he deserves the thrashing he has received here.
Please make some counter arguments if you have anything to say. Not just obsessively praising Walt. . . . .
I agree, Toivos. It was painful to see how Walt debunked Kroenig's analysis. Yalephd, what answers do you need? Just read the arguments between Walt and Kroenig. If you do not have any stake in the game, it is clear who makes the most sense.
Yalephd diesn't know the first thing about facts
>> . The fact and reality is the Iran is trying to get a bomb and containing the Iranian threat and all its associated issues, whether it is nuclear proliferation or an emboldened Iran, is going to be far more costly than a pinpointed strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.
The fact is that they are NOT trying to get a bomb. That's why al 16 US intelligence agencies have concluded in 2007 and 2011 tha the Iranians haven't even decided to peruse one.
>> Yes people will die, but it will not be the mass slaughter of innocent civilians that Walt rants about.
You gotta love how Zionists are so willing to sacrific the blood of others so arbitrarily. YalePHD is exhibiting the same behaviors as Kroenig. He wants us to believe him whe he says that the death toll will be minimal based on nothing more than his opinion.
>> If he sincerely believes that then he has greatly misjudged the quality of our military
Yes, that would explain the 1 millio deaths in Iraq.
>> . If he thinks that a nuclear Iran is a non-issue that can successfully be dissuaded by sanctions (which it will pass along the costs of to the Iranian population), then frankly he is a moron.
Straw man. Walt has not suggested that Iran can be dissuaded by sanctions, he argues tha there is infant no evidence Iran is even persui nukes,
That makes you the moron.
>> Walt's moronic isolationist policy reminds me of the nutcase Ron Paul.
And your chicken hawk hot air reminds me of the of war criminals neocons like Willian Krystol and Richard Perle.
>> Maybe if he wins we will know who the next SecDef is, though if either of those nutjobs had their way, they would probably abolish the DoD entirely
Great idea..
It's not about Iran's 'nuclear weapons program'...
it's about Israel's need to once and for all eliminate Hezbollah and Hamas. Here's my take on how they plan to do it - and,more imortantly, why:
http://lataan.blogspot.com/2011/12/is-cataclysmic-war-against-iran-only.html
At this point its impossible to take anyone seriously when they start hurling the words "Zionist" and "Neocon".
It shows everyone they would rather rely on conspiracy theory mongering, slogans and covert bigotry than cough up a reasonably plausible argument.
Its all "the US is acting on orders of the vast Zionist conspiracy". Pure protocols of the elders of zion type bullshit.
My thought also. Why is that Zionist are now considering it an insult when you refer to them as Zionist? Are they getting a little defensive? I thought it was supposed to be a label to hold proudly. At least for those who consider themselves Zionist anyway. Are you guys starting to be ashamed of the title? Let us know how you want to be labelled if Zionist is considered an insult. Maybe we can come with a more socially acceptable label.
Lazy epithets are no substitute for actual thought here
You guys have the default position that anything having to do with the Middle East is the work of the "EVIL ZIONIST CONSPIRACY(tm)".
Its not only lazy, but it is a sure sign that you are just taking the party line here. Obviously looking at actual facts takes a backseat to paranoid delusion and obvious bigotry. When confronted by how half-hearted and poorly thought out your material is, the response is to sling ad hominem.
There is no reason to take you guys seriously.
Poor Spood wants wants you to believe neocons and Zionists
Din't exist.
>> It shows everyone they would rather rely on conspiracy theory mongering, slogans and covert bigotry than cough up a reasonably plausible argument.
This coming from the inventor of the the thesis that Iran built a civilian power reactor and is generating electricity to bluff the West into attacking Iran.
>> Its all "the US is acting on orders of the vast Zionist conspiracy". Pure protocols of the elders of zion type bullshit.
Yes it is bullshit, just as the claims about Iraq WMD. And all the threats from Israel to attack Iran are all written byIranian spies working at Haaretz. For that matter,the former Mossad head, Meir Dagan, who is being so vocal about the dangers of Israel atackig Iran must be working for an Iranian lobby.
The UScand Israel have been predicting that Iran was 6 months from building anuke since 1984. That's almost 30 years of getting it wrong.
Logic would suggest therefore that they would have figured out by now that Iran was just bluffing all this time, if indeed that we're true. After 28 years if this crap, the US has twisted tge arms if the rest if the UNSC to impose sanctions.
That leaves 2 obvious conclusions:
1. That Iran is building nukes
2. That the US and Israel is lying about Iran's nukes
Seeing as we both agree Iran is not making nukes, that leves 2 as the only logic conclusion.
The makers of foreign policy in the U.S needs more of these arguments. This does however not mean that military intervention is always a bad thing.
Very thorough as usual in your balanced-threats approach sir; but interestingly you get off theory with your international norms and legal issues being of concern. So if they are of concern sir, then maybe the issue of Iran and the NPT should be focused on by yourself to make a more solid case. For if this goes the wrong way for everyone but Iran, where do these international norms and safeguards stand? And where do institutions and legality stand afterwards with your balanced-threats approach? It seems to me you can't have it both ways for punditry's sake. For still they wonder: why don't they trust us?
WALTERC asks about int'l norms and int'l legality
They are intertwined because "international law" is actually a combination of law and custom i.e. some int'l law is written down (e.g. in "treaty law") and some int'l law is not written down (they are "customs" that apply to all states).
Since WW2 the idea that you are prohibited from attacking another state because you do not like what they are doing has been entrenched in both treaty law (e.g. the UN Charter) and has been acknowledged to be a "custom of war" (e.g. The Hague Regulations, and the Nuremberg Tribunals).
Doing that is a war of aggression, and for the USA to attack Iran merely because it doesn't like the fact (and it is fact) that Iran refuses to suspend its uranium enrichment is, indeed, the dictionary-definition of a war of aggression.
That Koenig argues several times that the USA should do this because it is MORE CONVENIENT than the alternatives is, indeed, rubbing salt into the wounds, precisely because war is meant to be something that is thrust upon you, at which point you are entitled to defend yourself.
It is not meant to be "a convenience".
So in terms of the "int'l norms" the answer is obvious: if the USA feels free to start wars of convenience then other states can emulate that "norm", and the more times the USA does this then the more "normal" that behaviour becomes, until we all end up back in the world as it existed in the 1930s.....
As for your question about "the issue of Iran and the NPT" then I will point you to this excellent article:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/2011/11/dan-joyner-iaea-report.php
I agree entirely with that op-ed, and I would be interested indeed if anyone can find any fault in it because I certainly couldn't.
The only long term solution for Iran is likely to be the kind of culturally Islamic democracy that has been established in Turkey; now, is attacking it going to make that more or less likely?
To answer the question about how having nuclear weapons would aid Iran in acting offensively is another question that you can answer by going back to the "War of the Cities" in the Iran-Iraq war. Should Iran get into a conflict with Israel it could fire conventionally armed missiles against Israeli cities. Regardless of missile defences some of these would get through. If this went on long enough the economic consequences for Israel could be severe. Anyone with dual nationality would be heading back to New York or London on the next plane out. The divergence in physical size and population would make this a pretty straightforward option for Iran; Israel's ability to hit back would be very limited unless it threatened to use nuclear weapons as it might against an "existential threat". Of course if Iran also had nuclear weapons, that threat would be neutralised in the way that the article explains.
If you think that scenario is possible, you come back to the only long term solution - encourage democratic forces in Iran and stop worrying about how many centrifuges they will have next week.
Every argument misses the point
Is a nuclear Iran deterrable?
In 1944 and with that level of technology the USA built a U-235 weapon FROM SCRATCH in 10 months. It was so reliable we never tested it (Alamogordo was a plutonium weapon). Decades later Pakistan went the same route and had a stockpile before they decided a test was in order for political reasons.
What does that tell you?
More, if Iran is NOT deterrable how would they use this weapon? A missile with a radar track every power can see? Not a chance. Just think about that one. A jet with the same weaknesses? Or a dilapidated lead lined truck driven by some newer Samir Quntar (or some 'system' such as that)?
Since 1979 every leader of Iran (not just Ahmadinejad) save one has made ONE GOAL a holy one, and we all know what that is. Would there be calls to leave things alone if the target of such a holy call for annihilation was Britain? Or Australia?
When I see arguments fantasizing about Israel having as the only sensible course being part of a nuclear free zone (something which sounds to me like the 1922 Washington Treaties on steroids) while the MB and their partners in the new Egypt are deciding with their 2/3 sized mandate HOW to abrogate the treaty with Israel it means some commenters are FANCIFUL DELUSIONARIES.
If Iran is deterrable why have they not yet been deterred?
What will THEY have learned about this if they complete their project, then?
What will that portend?
The tactical target is the nuclear weapons program.
The strategic target is the mullahs.
Removing this racist bloodthirsty regime is a moral goal.
Those are the facts
Are we willing to act strategically?
Is the USA willing to use troops to achieve this? (RU KIDDING?)
Can we get the Iranians to remove the mullahs, and how fast can we arrange this set of circumstances (whatever they are)?
Those are the questions we should be asking ourselves, not if it is wise to TRY to halt for a while their bomb project.
As for attacking the mullahs being moral ...Mr Walt conveniently avoids the real question.
Which path is LESS IMMORAL?
EPAMINONDAS is yet another warmonger gunning for Iran. Why? Because, he writes, “Removing this racist bloodthirsty regime is a moral goal".
The Iranian regime may be naughty, but if if you want to point to a bloodthirsty racist regimes, you need to look no further than your beloved state of Israel, the last settler-colonialist apartheid state on earth. Last I checked Iran does not specify its citizens and codifies the differences in law, so that advantages accrue to one segment of the population (the “chosen” ones) and not the other. Last I checked, Iran was not formed by ethnically cleansing a native population to make room for the “chosen” people. Last I checked, Iran does not steal land to build settlements for the “chosen” people. It does not rain phosphorous on civilians and murder children because they are not “chosen”. It does not keep millions of people stateless, imprisoned, and on a diet, because they won’t submit to their dispossession and subjugation. The US has no moral obligation to make the world safe for Zio-supremacists. The moral obligation is to end Apartheid in Palestine/Israel.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(86)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE