As the international pressure on Iran intensifies, the option of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities remains on the table. It is widely believed that a limited strike targeting key nodes in the nuclear complex can delay Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons by several years. However, a fresh look at the historical record suggests that an attack can intensify the Iranian nuclear challenge and push Iran across the nuclear weapons threshold sooner rather than later.
Advocates of a military strike believe that the Israeli destruction of the Osiraq reactor complex in June 1981 delayed Iraq's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. This belief rests on two assumptions: that Iraq was pursuing a weapons option in a determined manner before the attack and that the destroyed reactor was intended to serve as a key component of these efforts. Both assumptions are false.
In the mid-1970s Iraq began to develop a nuclear weapons option as part of a wider expansion of their nuclear power program. Iraqi sources demonstrate that there was no dedicated organization, staff or funding for the purposes of acquiring nuclear weapons prior to June 1981. In other words, Iraq had not begun to act on Saddam's nuclear weapons ambition in a serious or determined manner.
The Israeli attack triggered Iraq's determined pursuit of nuclear weapons. In September 1981, three months after the strike, Iraq established a well-funded clandestine nuclear weapons program. This had a separate organization, staff, ample funding and a clear mandate from Saddam Hussein. As the nuclear weapons program went underground the international community lost sight of these activities and had no influence on the Iraqi nuclear calculus.
The destruction of the Osiraq reactor did not delay the development of a nuclear weapons option because it was never intended to be part of such an effort. The French-supplied facility was subject to rigorous safeguards and designed to ensure that Iraq would not be able to produce weapons-grade plutonium. An examination of the reactor by Harvard physicist Richard Wilson after the attack concluded that the facility was not suited for production of weapons-grade plutonium. As a result, the attack did not reduce the risk that Iraq would develop nuclear weapons. On the contrary, it brought about a far more determined and focused effort to acquire nuclear weapons.
Why, then, did Iraq still fail to acquire nuclear weapons? The nuclear weapons program failed as a result of sub-optimal technological choices and poor management. These slip-ups had nothing to do with the Israeli strike. Instead they reflected a non-meritocratic bureaucratic culture, office politics, and bad judgement.
First, the culture of fear in Saddam's Iraq produced inefficient management and led scientists to fear admitting failure. Thus, unproductive projects continued longer than they should have. Second, by opting for inefficient and outdated technologies the isotope separation project failed spectacularly and caused years of delay. Had the Iraqis opted for more efficient technologies from the outset and not been constrained by the regime's excessive security concerns they would have made much greater progress during the first five years of the program.
In late 1987, an intervention from Saddam's son-in-law put an end to this stalemate and facilitated development of alternative technological approaches.
Making a difficult problem worse
The technical and political characteristics of Iran suggest that an attack can have a more transformative impact than in the Iraqi case. First, unlike Saddam's Iraq the Iranian regime has competing sources of power. So far, these groups do not appear to have reached a consensus resulting in a decision to acquire nuclear weapons. An attack is likely to facilitate such a consensus.
Second, Iranian nuclear establishment has learned its lessons from Osiraq. The decentralized and concealed Iranian nuclear complex is more robust than the Iraqi infrastructure was in 1981. Nevertheless, an attack on Iran's nuclear fuel production and enrichment facilities in Isfahan and Natanz would require Iran to either re-build these facilities or develop an alternative (assuming they do not already have secret facilities offering these capabilities).
Advocates of the strike option suggest that the delay caused by an attack buys valuable time. This begs the question: time to do what? After an attack, three options remain: more strikes, containment or regime change. In the Iraqi case, between 1991 and 2003 air strikes were largely ineffectual, containment crumbled and regime change proved disastrous. Containment and further strikes are unlikely to dissuade a determined Iranian leadership from acquiring nuclear weapons. Regime change is no longer an option.
An attack may intensify the Iranian nuclear challenge and make it more difficult in the longer term. If Tehran cannot be persuaded to abstain from the Bomb, it is time to learn to live with the prospect of a nuclear Iran.
I think there is genuine military consensus the practical role of nuclear weapons is now limited to that of doomsday machines. While there is inherent and substantial uncertainty about predicting unprecedented events, it seems highly plausible, even likely, that nuclear winter resulting from a small strategic strike would cause famine, or worse, on a hemispheric level. Tactical nuclear weapons are obsolete due to the extremely high accuracy of modern precision guided munitions. Nukes used to be the ultimate bunker busters, modern bunker busters (lauded within this thread) are kinetic energy delivered to a target with extreme precision. The warhead can contain concrete. The big problem is now finding what you want to target. Plus knowing it exists in the first place. This sea change has been going on in US circles since the Reagan Admin and seems thoroughly bipartisan (if you avoid cable TV). Doomsday devices seem to make the most sense for small nations that want to deter rapid defeat by conventional armies - like Israel. The bigger your land mass and population, the less necessary they seem.
Nukes aren't game changers. India got them, Pakistan got them and the sky did not fall. If anything, the two rivals seem a bit more cooperative these days. Can you imagine what would have happened if Mumbai had occurred in the 1970s? Iran will get its nukes, if they want them badly enough. The counter argument is – “but Muslims are crazy fanatics who commit suicide to further their aims.” We need to distinguish between terrorism and statecraft, between crazy leaders and leaders who are crazy like a fox. Terrorists obtaining nukes is a scary prospect. We can live with a nuclear Iran if it comes to that, which is comforting because in the end we cannot unilaterally make the choice. Believing otherwise is a delusion.
In other countries, war with Iran, and more specifically, war period, is not on the table. War is a non-issue for most countries. Only in America are we constantly threatening, talking about and preparing to go to war. It's no wonder the young can't afford to go to college, and that we suffer under a constant threat of terrorism. We don't even have universal health care coverage the way another country that routinely goes to war does, namely Israel.
All of this talk of war and warmongering will eventually bite us in the gluteus maximus. As a matter of fact it already has with September 11th. How ironic it is that our current economic collapse was due in no small part to the spending on the evil Iraq War, something which our current President spoke against.
We are only digging our own grave with our national obsession with war. In the meantime, Germany and Japan, which have their own experiences with unbridled militarism, will no doubt thumb their nose in our face when we face the same consequences they did for non-stop aggressive war and bullying. Germany and Japan learned their lesson long ago about the results of militarism, etc.
T. Jefferson
Oops, pardon me. Didn't see the qualifier "in the mix."
Just thinking of attacking another country for no real reason is INSANE !
Definition: INSANE (source wiki)
Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns.
If there is going to be an attack, if will not be a "limited" strike, it will be an extensive campaign to remove not just the regime but everything that the regime has built to the last police station, in an attempt to re-write history. Then cameras will be allowed in to show the destroyed towns as evidence of the governments 30 year mismanagement. So, if there is a strike, it won't be Israel doing it.
This has been going on for at least 10 years now, if not more. The dogged allegiance to these scenarios is strangely reminiscent of fantasies of Aplcalypic fundamentalists.
When the smallest gust of wind or a tiniest earthquake is ecstatically proclaimed as the be the first seal of the Apocalypse. Despite all the evidence historical precedent. to the contrary.
Historical record proves that an Israeli attack on Iraqi reactor forever ended Hussein's nuclear program.
In fact, it almost seems as if someone didn't read the article at all, and instead just started posting talking points like a good little polemic promoter.
Simply, No!
With all these threats of attacking Iran during past several years, one can be sure Iran have contingency plans already in place, 60% of Iran is mountainous with numerous natural caves, one thing for sure is an attack will cause oil prices to go so high that world wide financial melt down is assured.
Worst case scenario of having Iran with weapon is continuing of status quo, which is mistrust and mutual assured destruction for all parties involved, other conclusions are paranoia and/or wishful thinking!
They already hate us, so I am unconcerned with how they will feel. I am much more concerned with a nuclear Iran. Had W. not improperly taken us into Iraq, I truly believe we would have reacted differently to both North Korea & Iran. North Korea already sold bomb making necessities to Syria. A nuclear armed Iran is totally unacceptable.
http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/
What do you think the missiles they are developing are for? Peace?
All viable.
"If Tehran cannot be persuaded to abstain from the Bomb, it is time to learn to live with the prospect of a nuclear Iran. "
A disaster of historic proportions.
Aside from the prospect of Iran's oft threatened annihilation of Israel, once Iran has their nuclear sheild, there is no one who will challenge whatever mischief they decide to initiate.
The arab world is scared to death of a nuclear shiite nation and Iran's nuclear weapons would only be the beginning of a nuclear arms race among the world's most unstable governments.
As one arab columnist put it; "If Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons when he invaded Kuwait, Iraq would still be in Kuwait"
I think you are wrong. Israel was just as aggressive towards defenseless people before they had nuclear weapons.
Had the arabs not declared that war, there would be no conflict.
If the arabs would accept peace, there would be peace tomorrow.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/arab-states-unanimously-approve-saudi-peace-initiative-1.216851