In what may perhaps be one of the most outrageous comments about resolving the Iranian nuclear standoff, presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said that he would bomb Iran's nuclear facilities if they do not open up for IAEA inspectors.
Is this prudent or foolish?
Missing from this equation is definitive proof that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. While Iran openly admits that it is pursuing peaceful nuclear energy, something Iran has the right to do under international law, suspicions linger that the real goal of the program is military use.
A tough stance can be ideologically driven without due consideration to a process to arrive at the right course of action. A process should include consideration of positives, negatives, alternatives and ways to achieve a desired outcome.
First, consider some positive outcomes of a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Second, consider some negative outcomes of a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
It is not enough to say that because there may be more negative outcomes than positive that the negatives outweigh the positive; such would assume equal weight to each point. However, in this case, the case for striking Iran's nuclear program over a lack of inspections is not prudent. Striking or not striking is not the only set of options.
Third, consider an alternative scenario.
An alternative way forward is through a dual approach of diplomacy and sanctions. The sanctions must be specific, not affect world oil supply, and target elements that support the government and not the people. This is easier said than done. At present, the new round of sanctions designed to target Iran's central bank would negatively affect world oil supply and consequently prices. Other sanctions have been more carefully crafted and more effective.
Diplomacy must be done with various interests in mind. These include: U.S., Israel, Iran, the greater Middle East and the international community. Diplomacy also requires the right people at the table with the right set of carrots and sticks who also have a sense of empathy (understanding the other's point of view), a clear sense of what success will look like, and a clear line of what is not acceptable.
The U.S. extended a hand to Iran in 2009 but this was rejected at the time. Iran has recently signaled that it is willing to restart talks with the 5 plus 1 group (the UN Security Council and Germany). There is reason for hope that Iran will come around and allow IAEA inspectors to resume inspections.
However, there always exists the possibility that Iran may use IAEA inspections as a way to buy time at sites unknown to the IAEA. North Korea seems to have successfully used this strategy and now is believed to possess nuclear weapons. Only after sanctions and diplomacy have failed, and proof of a nuclear weapons program is established, should the military option be seriously considered. Even then, as with the Dayton Accords where military pressure was applied in conjunction with diplomacy and sanctions to successfully reach peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, diplomacy and sanctions should never be taken off the table in place of military options.
These options have not been exhausted and this is why a strike on Iran as Rick Santorum described it is ill-advised and short-sighted.
This is not a comprehensive analytically driven process; that would require far more details and facts. This is a sketch intended to raise awareness of the need for a process.
Thinking Long-Term
There is an appropriate saying for this situation: "If you make someone do something through fear, they will do what you say. But once you remove the fear, not only are they not going to do what you say, they are going to come after you."
Any nation pursuing a nuclear program is extremely serious. It is even more serious when that country has a long and hostile relationship with regional and distant countries. But precisely because this is a serious and potentially dangerous situation, the utmost caution must be applied when considering the use of military force on another nation.
Short-sighted saber-rattling, such as threats made by a presidential candidate, does nothing to help this delicate and tense situation. While the U.S. is the strongest country in the world, prudence would suggest that we pursue a course of action that successfully respects and appeals to all parties, and not one that involves the other side deciding what to do with a gun to their head, especially when there are other options available that won't lead to unintended second-order consequences.
PAUL HEROUX previously lived and worked in the Middle East and was a senior analyst at the Institute for Defense and Disarment Studies. He has a masters in International Relations from the London School of Economics and a Master's from the Harvard School of Government. Paul can be reached at PaulHeroux.MPA@gmail.com.
Follow Paul Heroux on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulHeroux
Robert J. Spitzer: The GOP and Presidential Power
Jayshree Bajoria: The Iran Deterrence Debate
A few key additions to the pros and cons list:
There is no certainity that it is ever possible to stop Iran's nuclear development. They have it scattered and burried deep by now. Only direct nuclear hits may put an end to it for sure. Nuclear bombs? Seriously?
What will be the reaction of Iran when attacked? Probably they will loose thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles in all kinds of directions, mostly at Israel. Not only that, some of Israel's "neighbors", some close allies of Iran, will join in the fireworks also for sure.
One lesson most nations, with or without nuclear ambitions, have learned by now is that not having a deterrance can be very bad for your health.
Iran will have the capability, if not the bombs themselves sooner or later.
Best way to nuetralize the threat such capacity may pose is to solve the cancer of Palestinian problem justly and as soon as possible.
What is the point for killing all those innocent people, there is no evidence of nuclear weapons, are people in the world unaware that a nuclear disaster has world-wide consequence?
Why is legality ignored?
As long as the mullahs and the revolutionary guard are ruling the country there will eventually be a confrontation with the west.
The question will only be; Will that confrontation be before Iran has nuclear weapons, or after they have them?
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf
Diplomacy is the only answer. The people of Iran and the people of the US have so much in common and there is a rich potential for mutually beneficial cooperation and friendship. All that's standing in the way is archaic religious fanatacism - on both sides.
1. Move the US Embassy to Jerusalem.
2. Allow Israel to build anywhere. There is no Palestinian Territory.
3. Declare Jerusalem the undivided and eternal capital of Israel.
4. Remove the WAQF as the authority in charge of the Temple Mount.
5. Romney has said he would subordinate US foreign policy to the Israel's leaders.
6. Bomb Iran and remove the threat of them acquiring nuclear weapons NO MATTER WHAT THE
COST!
7. Make aid to Israel protected from any budget hearings.
8. They all completely reject the Right of Return.
There are more but you get the idea. Last night CNN was interviewing a soldier and he started talking about how he liked Ron Paul. He was explaining why and when he said Israel didn't need our aid Wolf Blitzer cut him off. They all love war.
The US breaks every international law it feels like breaking.
Read "Rogue Nation" by William Blum
Is that the same hand that rejected the deal Turkey & Brasil signed with Iran? Is that the same hand that violates sovereign airspace with drones and who knows what else? The same hand that has a policy, and a $400M budget to back it up, for the explicit purpose of "covert actions" against Iran?
Although I agree with your overall assessment and general comments that attacking is a terrible idea and that there are far better options, you could strengthen your argument by acknowledging the fact that the west has NOT really ever tried true diplomacy, as you say, "without a gun to the head".
Good article overall
So true, to the point of being as insightful as this sentence: "In order to prepare a nourishing meal, it is vital to have food on hand.'
And even here in this boilerplate of the obvious, we are left to wonder: "A clear sense of what success will look like"-- to whom? "A clear line of what is not acceptable"-- to whom?