The Game of Kings: A Bit More on Iran

Adam L. Silverman, PhD*

As we move past the Thanksgiving holiday into December, and as the Republican primaries lurch ever closer, we can be assured that the reverbations from the recent IAEA report about Iran's nuclear program will continue.  While some of this will be part of the posturing by candidates either in the Republican presidential primaries or in the lead up to the House and Senate campaigns in 2012, some of it will be the result of the US's responses to the report and the challenge that Iran presents, as well as how other major international and regional actors respond.  As the US attempts to ratchet up the economic pressure through new sanctions, Russia, a major trading partner of Iran, as well as a major player in Iran's nuclear development program, has indicated that it opposes them.  It is, perhaps, an appropriate time to step back and reflect on the actual strategic challenge that Iran's nuclear program presents to the US.

There are two key questions we have to ask in regard to any potential response towards Iran's nuclear development program: 1) will US action towards Iran actually prevent them from pursuing and/or acquiring a nuclear weapons capability? and 2) will US action towards Iran to prevent them from pursuing and/or acquiring a nuclear weapons capability change the Iranian government's behavior in the manner that we want?  Looking at possible options we can reasonably rule out further and/or increased sanctions.  To be blunt they have not worked.  While they initially inflicted some pain on Iran that gave way long ago and Iran has managed to survive and grow despite them.  While I am sure I am about to give a whole lot of people serious agita, now might be a good time to consider what might happen if we actually tried doing something else like pursuing a serious diplomatic initiative.  Since trying to lock down and close off Iran has not actually worked, perhaps opening up trade and travel to Iran just might.  While there is certainly no gaurantee of success, continuing to do what we are doing is, to paraphrase Professor Einstein, crazy.  I can not help but think that the ability of diasporan Iranians to travel home, for Iranians to travel to other places including the US with less hassle and difficulty, for scientific, professional, and business exchanges to occur can not but have a positive effect.  At some point we can not keep pointing to the stick and saying it is a carrot.

The real follow on question is how much risk are we willing to assume in regard to Iran's nuclear program, its actual desire to develop nuclear weapons, and what that means for our interests in the region.  One argument that has been made is that if Iran were to gain a nuclear weapon, then it would lead to a regional nuclear arms race in the Middle East.  Such an arms race would certainly be very bad and it is certainly not in our interest, let alone those living in the region, but is it really plausible or probable?  While it is certainly a possibility, and the differences between Sunni and Shi'a, as well as Arabs and Iranians (Persians) is an excacerbating set of factors, if the poorly kept secret within Israel's nuclear program, that it actually has nuclear weapons has not started a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, then I am not really convinced that if Iran is pursuing them it will do so.

And it is the answer to the issue of how much risk and how best to achieve the effects we would like to see, combined with a good deal of clear and accurate information about Iran's national identity, how it interacts with and is shaped by Iran's unique social, political, and religious structures and institutions (see graphic below), and how identity and structures work on each other to make Iran resilient enough to withstand American efforts to economically and diplomatically isolate it for over thirty years.

Another important question in trying to determine how much risk we are willing to assume is whether or not the use of force would be effective?  Given the reported locations of Iran's nuclear facility (please see image below), this would not be a matter of simply trying to repeat the Israeli strike on the Osirak reactor.  

Morevoer, given Iranian national pride and identity a strike on Iranian nuclear sites is likely to actually rally support for the current government, which is antithetical to our stated goals.  Furthermore, striking Iran would most likely have a long term opposite effect convincing those within the Iranian government that they actually need to pursue nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the US.  And it is important to remember that from Iran's perspective the world looks like this:

I can not help but think that while we might be able to severely hurt the Iranians, doing so will not produce the governmental reforms we would like to see and would ultimately only reinforce those Iranian positions that they might need a nuclear weapons capability to deter more powerful actors liks the US.  Moreover, Iran has the ability to hurt us economically through actions that effect the price of oil.  American and global economic recovery is already anemic, any disruptions in the Persian Gulf and Straits of Hormuz will drive the price of oil up and make a poor economy an absolutely terrible one.  It may eventually be necessary to emply military options in regards to Iran's nuclear development program, but we should only do so if we have actually exhausted all other possible options without success.  Before we reach that point we should actually try something different.  This would definitely be preferable to what seems to have become our default threatened and/or actual response: invading Middle Eastern and Central Asian countries and not achieveing the results we want.

* Adam L. Silverman, PhD is the Culture and Foreign Language Advisor at the US Army War College.  The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Army War College and/or the US Army.

Comments

[rkka]

Also, it isn't at all clear that Iran has a nuclear weapons program to give up. After all, it was also our policy that Iraq give up the nuclear weapons program that it didn't have, and the US government showed great inventiveness coming up with reasons not to be persuaded of that by any argument or evidence to the contrary, short of that provided by the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

And that turned out so well... for KBR and Halliburton.

[Rd.]

Adam L. Silverman,

It is, perhaps, an appropriate time to step back and reflect on the actual strategic challenge that Iran's nuclear program presents to the US.

The strategic challenge to US is Iran's independence. Though the nuclear technology (not)know-how would be a desired outcome as well. Lets keep 'em backward so they can depend on us. The sanctions are serving Iran well, so she can stand on her own.

–BRICS blocks the US on Middle East
In brief;
1. no excuse for foreign intervention
2. Any external interference in Syria’s affairs, not in accordance with the UN Charter, should be excluded
3. rejected the threat of force against Iran and called for continued dialogue and negotiations.
4. lauded the GCC initiative on Yemen as an example.
5. Called for a review of the actions in Libya with participation of the African Union.

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2011/11/25/brics-blocks-the-us-on-middle-east/

[JohnH]

Working within the existing political narrative, Dr. Silverman makes a solid case for seriously engaging with Iran.

I continue to argue that the existing frame--the fear of Iranian nukes--is a fabricated construction designed purely to demonize Iran and garner support for regime change. And it has just enough plausibility to be effective, just like the case against Saddam's supposed program. How do we know this?

1) US policy has been zealously anti-Iranian ever since the US' favorite tyrant, the Shah, got the boot. Pretenses for the policy have changed over the years, but the policy has always been one of intransigence, never wavering. The issue of Iranian nukes is only the latest manifestation.

2) Iran has solid reasons to want a nuclear fuel program. Heck, even the Shah wanted nuclear power. Nuclear power frees up oil and gas for export. However, legitimate Iranian needs and aspirations never figure into the publicly discussed policy calculus.

The problem here is that the Vienna group--the established nuclear powers--appear intent on maintaining their commercial monopoly and also using nuclear fuel as a political weapon. These are profoundly incompatible goals.

When Obama rejected the Brazilian-Turkish initiative and refused to supply fuel for the TRR, a medical reactor, it signaled to everyone that nuclear fuel would not be made available to anyone who did not tow Washington's line. We will know only in retrospect, but I suspect that that decision let the nuclear genie out once and for all.

Now, any self-respecting nation, motivated by its own national interest, needs to have its own covert nuclear program--to safeguard the nuclear fuel supply for its domestic electric power production against blackmail by the "international community."

Iran is on the bleeding edge of this trend, because it has been under US sanctions longer than anyone but Cuba and North Korea. Unwilling to surrender its sovereignty to US oversight, these countries do what they perceive to be in their national interest to develop and prosper. For Iran, part of that development includes nuclear power and the use of medical isotopes.

IMHO nothing could undercut the Iranian nuclear program more than a guaranteed, reasonably priced supply of nuclear fuel. The enormous costs and risks of the program could not be justified given other pressing social needs.

The fact that the "international community" is adamantly opposed to trying this approach exposes its duplicity. If the "international community" were indeed sincere about nuclear non-proliferation it would make nuclear fuel available without conditions beyond those set out in existing treaties. And it would force non-signatories, like Israel, to comply.

The fact that the "international community" is willing to play political games with nuclear fuel should be of utmost concern for us all because of the enormous stakes.
The perception of potential blackmail of nuclear fuel by the "international community" deserves as much discussion as any issue precisely because its provides non-nuclear states the impetus they need to contravene the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, just as the nuclear powers have been contravening it for years by refusing to eliminate nuclear weapons.

This emerging situation poses an existential threat to humanity. Yet it is simply not being discussed publicly.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Adam L. Silverman:

I think you are missing the point.

US is now contained in the Middle East; she is in a prolonged form of strategic competition with Iran across the entire Islamdom with no end in sight.

She has turned herself into knots in the Arab-Israeli low-intensity war and she can neither end that war no extricte herself.

In the meantime, her pro-Israel policies poisons her relationship with Muslims while Iranians further wrap themselves in the Mantle of the Prophet.

If US leaders were smart, they would take Col. Lang's idea of the Concert of Middle East and run with it to extricate themselves from their strategic entrapment in the Middle East.

Specifically with respect to Iran, and independent Iranian power is not a threat to US, it is to US dependencies such as Kuwait, UAE, and Saudi Arabia.

I think the disucssion of war with Iran without seriosuly paying attention to what follows that war is infantile. That someone expects regime change in Iran after she has been attacked by US demonstrates to me the depths of ignorance prevailing in US ruling circles.

Are they for real?

[Babak Makkinejad]

BRICS do not have the power to block the United States from waging war against Iran.

And you need to get the "I" - for India - out of it.

She is harmonizing her policies with US, in chimerical pursuit of strategic parity with China.

[Jake]

Get Iran back into the NPT.... That should be the very first step...

[eakens]

What?

[walrus]

Follow the money......

...And it leads to Israel.

Turkey, Syria, Iran, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon are all countries that potentially are better investment destinations for American businesses than Israel.

How do we stop that from happening? Two wars and implacable opposition to Islam have worked for Ten years. Maybe an attack on Iran will do it for another Twenty.

[Rd.]

Babak Makkinejad said in reply to Rd....

BRICS do not have the power to block the United States from waging war against Iran.

Babak,

the fact that they are making a statement has its own significance. BRICS as a unit did not even exist a decade or so ago. And where was US, her power projection, political capital, economy, etc.. a decade ago. During the first golf war and shortly after the fall of soviet empire, the US was able to gather the world to punish Sadam. The calculations are changing.

[Tony]

I agree with Walrus
Follow the money......

...And it leads to Israel.

I think Iran has done a great favor to Israel so far. Now, they (Iranians) are the demons and Israelis the victims. So Israel gets whatever she wants from US and Europeans since she is in a great danger!! If this hypothesis is true, then there will be no war between Iran and Israel/US. After all if such a war to occur, then the weakened non-nuclear Iran will not be a danger to Israel any more.

[Jake]

What I meant to say was, get Iran to stay with the NPT and IAEA. The current move to pull out again is worrisome. So sorry for the overly quick response without engaging the neurons....

[confusedponderer]

A falling away of Iran as a goblin is not as big a problem as it seems: For instance and for starters there are Turkey, and Egypt that can be demonised as the enemy de jour.

[Jake]

"So Israel gets whatever she wants from US and Europeans since she is in a great danger!!"

Yeah like 1/5th of our Foreign Aid (FMF) monies. Of which 25% can be used purchasing equipment from Israeli companies. No other receiver of FMF monies can do any such thing.

[Aardvark]

again, What? Where did anyone say anything about Iran getting out of NPT?

Mohammad Larijani was on Charlie Rose a few days ago. He said, "We are in NPT. We do not want weapons. Nuclear weapons are not strategically useful."
Rose: "Do you want the same nuclear capability as Japan and Germany?"
Larijani: "No, Greater. We want nuclear tech. for research; we want to be better than the rest. That is the agreement of NPT."
Rose kept insisting/twisting Larijani's words to mean "we want weapons," but Larijani pushed back at every instance.

[confusedponderer]

And there one may have thought that foreign aid is only for the needy. Instead, it is a gift of affection, from America to the most prosperous nation in the Middle East. And this has gone so long that Israel and her partisans now treat it as an entitlement. Spoiled brats.

[Anna-Marina]

Cheney's and Bush's involvement in the Iran-contra affair: who needs the US Constitution?: http://www.salon.com/2011/11/25/the_iran_contra_scandal_25_years_later/singleton/
“Everyone in the world knows that semen on a blue dress is far more injurious to the nation, than selling weapons to the Death To America mullahs in Iran, to finance nun-raping mercenaries engaged in an illegal war in Nicaragua”

[Anna-Marina]

The incredible Liam Fox, the British Friends of Israel, and a Tel Aviv dinner with Mossad agents – pulling the UK into Israel’s war games against Iran:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27854

[turcopolier]

Anna-Marina

The Reagan Administration wanted to favor Iran because the Israelis were covert allies of the Iranians against Iraq and the Israelis wanted the US to favor the Iranians' side. Israel has been remarkably obtuse in any sort of analysis involving interests and countries that they perceive to be outside the world of Zionist interest. This was such a case. Israel was allied covertly to imperial Iran and this relationship was quickly revivied with the Islamic republic. The wizards of Tel Aviv followed the rule that the "farther enemy should be backed against the closer." That was about the limit of their srategic thinking other than to ask of any question, "is it good for Israel, today?" The idea that they should be interested in any issue not directly related to them was steadfastly ignored. When the Saudis discovered that we had been been helping Iran against Iraq their rage was unbounded. Much flowed from that rage. pl

[Charles I]

Whatever the merits of ISIS as previously discussed here is a link to commercial satellite imagery of the recent big explosion in Iran this Nove 12 past.

http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/satellite-image-showing-damage-from-november-12-2011-blast-at-military-base/

Adam, perhaps your map of what the world looks like to Iran should have a foreign marker INSIDE the country!