Three Maps for Professor Muravchik

Adam L. Silverman

As the Beaver just noted in a comment to The 47ers post, The Washington Post has published a guest editorial from Joshua Muravchik - a Fellow at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced Military Studies. Dr. Muravchik's argument is that war with Iran is the best option for dealing with their nuclear weapons program. One of the most important thing that those who develop policy and strategy need is an understanding of the human geography of the problem sets they are looking at in order to establish more fully informed objectives and develop the ways and means to achieve them. An understanding of the socio-cultural context that shows the interaction of people, places, and things (both natural and man made) is always illuminating when trying to explain this type of context in support of policy formation, strategic development, and planning. Using annotated maps is especially helpful. There are three maps that demonstrate why Dr. Muravchik's thesis is not the best option.

The first map details Iran's nuclear sites:

 *

The second map shows where Iran's military sites are as of 2002:

 **

The third map shows where Iran's population centers are and what the population densities are for those locations:

 ***

All three maps where found with the following simple keyword searches using Google Image search: Iranian nuclear sites, Iranian military sites map, and Iranian population centers map. We are not talking or typing rocket science here.

So what does this all have to do with Dr. Muravchik's thesis that going to war with Iran is our best option? If you compare the three maps you notice some important features. First, a significant number of Iran's nuclear sites, military sites, and population centers are all located in proximity to each other. This is not, in itself, surprising. The same natural and man made infrastructure necessary for a municipality is also necessary for military sites, and especially so for research and development sites. The ability to get personnel and supplies where they need to be in a timely manner means taking advantage of already existing infrastructure.

However, access to infrastructure for logistics' purposes is not the only reason for some of this co-location. For instance, the nuclear facility near Qom is not an accident. It was placed there in order to make it difficult for a US commander to approve a strike on it. Collateral damage from a strike that damages Qom is going to enrage Shi'a everywhere and reinforce support for the Iranian government. And this is where we really get to what the three maps are telling us. When you compare the locations of the nuclear sites, the military sites, and the population centers it becomes clear that an attempt to militarily reduce Iran's nuclear facilities, let alone degrade their military facilities, essentially amounts to reducing Iran. The potential for radioactive fallout from the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities, combined with other forms of collateral damage, would likely create a humanitarian crisis of almost unprecedented proportions. The only state with the strategic capabilities to provide the necessary humanitarian relief is the US - no one else has our strategic lift and response capabilities. 

Basically, a successful reduction of Iran's nuclear facilities and capabilities will create a humanitarian crisis that only the US can successfully respond to. A response that would have to be amongst a population that is suffering because of the humanitarian crisis that the US just created. And all of this for what most agree would be a modest setback for Iran in developing a nuclear weapon. Even Dr. Muravchik recognizes this, which is why he brushes it off by asserting we can just attack again and again if need be. This does not even include the consideration that Iranians would rally around their government or what forms of overt and covert responses Iran would take. As a result, Dr. Muravchik's recommendation fails the questions of feasibility, acceptability, and suitability. Attacking Iran to destroy their nuclear sites is not feasible - it would not set back any program for a significant amount of time; would rally support for the Iranian government amongst the Iranian population; would create an almost unprecedented and unseen humanitarian crisis; and would lead to significant overt and covert reprisals. It is also not acceptable. While the initial coverage of the air strikes on cable and broadcast news would likely play in Peoria, once the reality sinks in; the reprisals start; US civilian and military personnel are put at risk in the aftermath of the attacks; and the costs to the American and global economies kick in; whatever popular support such a course of action might have will fall off dramatically. Moreover, it will certainly not be acceptable among our allies - it might play in Peoria, but it won't play in London, Paris, or Berlin. There will certainly be no UN Security Council Resolution providing legitimacy. Finally, it is not suitable. Whatever good will the US has as a global force for good, will be quickly lost if we unilaterally strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. What Dr. Muravchik has proposed will not actually achieve any of America's goals in regard to Iran and the Middle East. It will not significantly set back Iran's nuclear program. It is unlikely to actually lead to a change in Iranian government. It would actually further destabilize the Levant and increase the risk to the US and our allies. What Dr. Muravchik is really proposing is war for war's sake, which should never be an option.

* The map of Iran's nuclear sites was found at Business Insider.

** The map of Iran's military sites as of 2002 was found at Wikipedia.

*** The map of Iran's population center's and densities was found at the BBC.

Comments

[confusedponderer]

Excellent post, thank you.

Re: "There will certainly be no UN Security Council Resolution providing legitimacy"

As Mr. Brenmner has put it well recently, international law recognises only three lawful justifications for waging war: self-defence, defence of an ally required by the terms of a treaty, and approval by the United Nations.

An attack on Iran meets none of these criteria:

The US wouldn't defend herself against Iranian attack. There is no instance of the defence of an ally, for one because Israel is not being attacked by Iran and then because Israel is no ally under a treaty that would oblige the US to defend her. And indeed, there is no UN resolution for actions against Iran under Chapter VII, nor will there conceivably be one.

A US bombardment of Iran, to deny it a technological capability it is entitled to under the NPT, would be a war of agression.

[rjj]

Why did WaPo showcase this dingleberry? Is it chumming?

[nick b]

Dr. Silverman,

I read Mr. Muravchik's article this morning with disgust. It's not worthy of your reasoned response. His main assumption is that war is better than an Iran with nuclear capability, because nuclear war is inevitable if Iran has the weapon. War is easy and only need be fought from the air: we can bomb them any time and as much as we want! Yay bombs! Reprisal attacks from Iran and the losses we may sustain are sad, but worth it because otherwise we're all going to be nuked for sure! What a load of crap!

SAIS was a top notch school when I went to JHU. I've read better essays from high school kids than this drivel. It's a sad day to be an alumni.

[Adam L Silverman]

RJJ,

The consensus I've seen bandied about is that WaPo's editorial page editor, Fred Hiatt, is in favor of always using American force to solve every problem. As a result, he will print any guest op-ed or pen any in house op-ed in favor of the use of force or promoting neo-conservative and neo-liberal interventionist ideas.

[Croesus]

Add a map of US military sites surrounding Iran and their proximity to Iranian military sites. How quickly could Iranians retaliate by attacking US bases?

[Adam L Silverman]

Nick B,

As long as a I can remember, SAIS was always sort of unique. It was both renowned, like University of Chicago, as prioritizing graduate level studies, especially for practitioners, but also lIke Chicago one of the holding locales for highly educated personnel waiting to go back into government.

[Adam L Silverman]

Croesus,

That's usually the fourth map I use when I have to brief this stuff. And I thought four maps for Professor Muravchik sounded funny...

[Babak Makkinejad]

A D Silverman:

Here is another article by him:

From 2007

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/wp-content/files_mf/1391450581d11Muravchik.pdf

and from 2009

http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/16/the-fp-memo-operation-comeback/

Such public journalistic discussions of war against a sovereign state and one of two or 3 core states of Muslim Civilization - with potential target selections - are essentially indicators of deranged minds; however much they may lay claim to some sort of rationality.

This is akin to People's Daily publishing a series of articles by various Chinese and North Korean self-style analysts over a 15 year period discussing war with France (or Italy) - while, ate the same time, waging an economic war against France.

This where we are, in my opinion, and it will take decades to walk back from this point to something approaching normalcy between US and Iran.

Lest we forget the shadows that the long gone Coup of 1953 and the Chemical Weapons of 1980 cast in this case and Shoah in a different context.

[Dismayed]

"What Dr. Muravchik has proposed will not actually achieve any of America's goals in regard to Iran and the Middle East."

tediously familiar elephant in the room: It is not America's goals Muravchick is interested in achieving.

methodology of Israel-firster foreign policy formulation:
(1) assess what is best for Israel
(2) figure out how to spin it to the stupid, gullible, and cowed Americans as being what's best for America

Muravchik actually isn't an idiot. nick b, imo one should judge whether Muravchik's competence reflects poorly on SAIS based on the quality of his analysis for step 1. Cut him some slack in step 2. It's getting more difficult to conflate Israeli and American interests.

[nick b]

Dismayed,

Judging by the smattering of comments I read on WaPo this morning, he didn't succeed at Step 2. Step 1 should have been the disclaimer on the article rather than his academic affiliation. Apologies for the rant.

[Charles 1]

Gee attack and repeat has worked in Gaza now for what, a whole decade?

[Charles 1]

It's getting more difficult to conflate Israeli and American interests.

Not on Capital Hill.

[oofda]

Muravchik's article is utter nonsense and simple war-mongering. He seems to lust for war with Iran, or anybody else. He should be ignored and shunned, but doubt that will happen with the neocons. His blithe answer to what would happen if the bombing didn't solve the problem- "bomb and bomb again" shows that he really doesn't have a clue about military operations.

As is usual with these people, Muravchik doesn't give an iota of thought to what the Iranian's would do in response- and that would likely include heavy attacks on Israel- by Iranian and Hezbollah rockets and other means. It is like the build-up to the Iraq invasion, where there was no thought given to the results of at U.S. invasion and the blow-back.
And Prof Silverman is on point to the reaction of the rest of the world- including our allies- to such an attack. The United States would lose what moral standing we have left in the world's view. This is a new low for the Post.

[Ishmael Zechariah]

SST,

Here is a non-rhetorical question: I could not find anything on the web detailing Muravchik's military service. Does anyone know if he has served in the armed forces of any nation in any role?

Thanks

Ishmael Zechariah

[Andy]

"The potential for radioactive fallout from the destruction of Iran's nuclear facilities, combined with other forms of collateral damage, would likely create a humanitarian crisis of almost unprecedented proportions."

While I vehemently disagree with Dr. Muravchik, the effects of a strike would not be a humanitarian disaster of unprecedented proportions. Most of the effects would be localized and come from poisonous materials and not radiation - similar to what was seen with the strikes against Iraq's nuclear infrastructure during and after Desert Storm. The effects would probably be even less in Iran given that much of the infrastructure is underground and therefore much more contained. The only exception might be a an attack against the Bushehr reactor that breached the containment and caused a meltdown. However, there is little reason to attack Bushehr in that manner or even attack it all.

In short, there's no doubt any attack would kill a lot of people, and those in the immediate vicinity of the facilities could die from dangerous chemicals and gases released after the attack. Others would suffer from long-term health effects. There is also the long-term environmental cost in terms of cleanup. These are all bad effects, but it wouldn't be a humanitarian disaster, particularly one of unprecedented proportions. Given the likely effects, the Iranians are more than capable of dealing with the aftermath.

[William R. Cumming]

Largely German contractors have built IMO over two dozen underground facilities since 1979 for Iran. Almost none displayed on maps or discussed.

Read FIRE IN THE EAST [1989]by Paul Bracken of Yale.

[Dubhaltach]

Yes it would be a war of aggression but they're quite capable of cooking up some pack of lies and using that as a casus belli. I refer you to then Secretary of State Colin Powell's pack of lies including waving around a test tube filled with a clear liquid in the UN debating chamber as "proof" that a country that had been completely hollowed out by years of sanctions and war possessed weapons om mass destruction and was a threat.

The US has a record of concocting a casus belli and not just in the Middle East. What's to stop them doing it again?

[Allen Thomson]

And, of course,

http://www.trentu.ca/faculty/jjoyce/fw-383.htm

Three quarks for Muster Mark!

Sure he hasn't got much of a bark
And sure any he has it's all beside the mark.

[The Beaver]

Well i decided to read up more on the Doctor and found this site to give a very good summary of the person:

http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Muravchik_Joshua

"Muravchik used his perch at the American Enterprise Institute to advocate attacking Iraq in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and has since been a proponent of the "war on terror." During the years following 9/11, he was signatory to multiple open letters that were produced by the Project for the New American Century and called on political officials to support a string of newly created "pro-war" pressure groups.

Muravchik also lent his support to the 2002 creation of the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, a group spearheaded by Michael Ledeen and Morris Amitay that has advocated for regime change in Iran; he became an advisory board member of the now-defunct Committee for the Liberation of Iraq;"

[scott s.]

As an aside, I thought the "global force for good" bit was some of the dumbest advertising I've seen. And "America's Navy" also rubs me the wrong way as well. I didn't raise my right hand to join a "global force for good" nor "America" -- rather to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". At least the current "to get to you they have to get through us" has a bit more appeal.

[sglover]

It's almost as if Muravchik's emission is timed so that Dr. Bacevic can say, "See what I mean?":

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175965/

But as Dr. Bacevic points out, on his second day on the job, Carter, the new Pentagon chief, elected to share "thoughts" over a meal with Kenneth Pollack, Michael O'Hanlon, and Robert Kagan. The Beltway Caesars have the sweetest gig that anybody ever imagined: No matter how often or how flamboyantly you screw up, you simply never face consequences.

[different clue]

nick b,

Since the WaPo used the Muravchik article as part of its ongoing agitprop for aggressive war against Iran, it is worth analyzing the Muravchik article in detail to discern exactly how to disarm and deweaponize it. One could perhaps go from there to a more general project of discrediting and isolating the WaPo agitproppers to destroy their effectiveness over time.

Since the WaPo works for Amazon's Jeff Bezos now, would enough letters to Amazon promising boycott of Amazon until Bezos cancels the War on Iran project at the WaPo be useful and effective?
What if enough Europeans wrote Amazon promising such a boycott throughout Europe until Bezos cancells the War on Iran agitprop project on the WaPo in America?

[walrus]

The underlying assumption inherent in the arguments of Professor Muravchick and his ilk is that an attack on Iran by the United States incurs little or no cost to America. I do not support that assumption.

Consider that the 911 terrorist attack was planned and executed by determined and educated men with considerable financial means. Consider also that what passes for terrorist attacks in the West since then have been, in my opinion, uniformly planned and executed by uneducated, low capability zealots, generally working alone or in amateurish cells.

One therefore has to ask the question: what might happen when a body of skilled and educated Iranians, with financial resources and perhaps tacit support of their own Government, feel mortally aggrieved towards the U.S.A? Obviously if Iran didn't have a nuclear weapons program, it would have one after the first attack. Then there is the little matter of biological warfare. Then there is the question of protecting Western infrastructure from sabotage for generations to come.

I need not spell out the vulnerabilities.

I discount, perhaps unwisely, the capabilities of our intelligence and law enforcement services to "keep us safe".

[Jose]

What did you people expect, from Wikipedia:

Muravchik is the author of 11 books of which the most noted have been Making David Into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel (2014), Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism (2002), and Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America’s Destiny (1991)

[turcopolier]

All

Obviously I do not favor Muravchik's thesis but it should be pointed out that there are massive differences in scale between the amount of damage that could be inflicted on Iran by the US using its strategic assets and that which could be inflicted on the US by the Iranians and/or anyone else other than Russia, China or the other "big people." "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," and sometimes an attack may kill a few thousand people as on 9/11 and in no way be an existential threat to a country as large and enormously populated as the US. "They" could attack our fleet in the Gulf or our forces somewhere. That would be sad but the US would simply build more ships and raise more forces. The Japanese did a lot of damage at Pearl Harbor but three years later air forces that did not exist in 1942 killed 100,000 Japanese in one night at Tokyo and brought Japan to unconditional surrender. The result of an Iranian attack on US soil would be the eradication of much of Iran. I know my people. we are very capable of that. The Iranians are informed, well educated people in spite of the wild-eyed claims of Bibi and his ignorant friends in the US Senate. The Iranians have no intention of getting into war with the US. As someone wrote here, this silliness is about the at least theoretical threat to Israel, not the unreal threat to the US from Iran. BTW, the US would not care at all about "world opinion" in this. My friend Walrus consistently underestimates the amount of damage the US can do but then, he has never seen a B-52 strike close up. Once Iranian air defenses were eliminated the US could roam the skies over Iran, "bombing tha back to the stone age." pl