Best Drupal HostingBest Joomla HostingBest Wordpress Hosting
WORLD POLICY ON AIR

World Policy Journal is proud to share our weekly podcast, World Policy On Air, featuring former Newsweek On Air host David Alpern with timely insights from global affairs analyst Michael Moran of Transformative.io, risk and geostrategy consultants. Click here to subscribe on iTunes!

THE LATEST

AddToAny
Share/Save

The Dangers of Launching a War Against Iran

By Amal Varghese

Washington seems geared towards its third war in just 11 years. Propaganda is not lacking on Capitol Hill, reminiscent of what we witnessed before of March 2003 when U.S. troops marched into Baghdad toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime in just four weeks. Since then, Maliki’s Iraq has plunged into sectarian warfare, deep corruption, and chaos. Hardly a "mission accomplished."

By characterizing Iran as an armed, existential threat, like the U.S. did with Iraq in 2003, and drawing arbitrary distinctions between "good" and "evil" regimes, Washington leaves little wiggle room for any effective diplomacy. Former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans rightly pointed out that “the real world is a place of gray shades, not black or white.” The war drums on Capitol Hill should be viewed with deep suspicion and subjected to rigorous public scrutiny to ensure Washington does not stumble into Iraq 2.0.

Following America’s unilateral launch of the Iraq war, under the “Coalition of the Willing” umbrella, the international community began to question the precedent being set in U.S. foreign policy. The contradictions were clear from the beginning. In February 2001, Colin Powell stated that Saddam Hussein was not a threat, and that Iraq was not developing any significant Weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities. Yet only 24 months later, he infamously addressed the United Nations General Assembly, asserting that Iraq was aggressively rebuilding its WMD program and would likely share its technology with al-Qaida. Today we hear a similar argument: a nuclear Iran would likely be aggressive and share nuclear technology with notorious terrorist groups like Hezbollah.

Given its track record in Iraq, Washington is unlikely to muster international support for a war against Iran. The moral wounds and bruises of Abu Ghraib have not healed. The U.S. and its staunch ally Israel are likely to stumble alone together into a war with Iran without a comprehensive policy outlining the goals of the mission and a clear exit-strategy. As Colin Kahl, former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East pointed out, “any war with Iran would be a messy and extraordinarily violent affair, with significant casualties and consequences.”

Unlike Iraq, Iran has developed strong proxy relationships capable of inflicting disproportionate destruction. America would find itself embroiled in another conflict in a region marred with deep antagonism towards the West and a hostile international community while still in the midst of an economic downturn at home. It would also deal a severe blow to the wave of democratization in the region, particularly in Syria, as Assad’s regime tries to hold on to power by massacring his own people. Waging a war on another Muslim country in the region would likely shift momentum away from the growing pro-democracy movements and further strengthen Arab despots who could justify state repression as a means to keep the West out.

Even a more limited military approach—a surgical strike to take out several Iranian facilities as Israel did on the Iraqi Osirak reactor in 1981—would backfire, spurring strong domestic support in Iran for a nuclear weapon at a time when the regime is vulnerable to opposition movements. The relatively succesful Israeli strike that took out the suspected Syrian nuclear site Al Kibar in 2007 cannot be used as a precedent to attack the Natanz or Qom nuclear sites in Iran. In contrast to Syria, the Iranian nuclear program is far more advanced, dispersed, and beneath ground, making it difficult to wipe out the entire program through airstrikes. Should Washington consider conventional war as it did in Iraq, it would be useful to understand that it would probably “win” a conventional war against Iran. But Tehran would likely respond with guerilla warfare tactics against American soldiers and missile strikes on Israel through its proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah.

Objectively speaking, it is highly unlikely that Iran will abandon its pursuit of developing a nuclear capability, owing to a fragile geopolitical neighborhood and a nuclear armed Israel on its periphery. Republican presidential candidates have so far condemned President Barack Obama's more cautionary approach in dealing with Iran, pledging a tougher approach once they are in power. The GOP’s portrayal of the Islamic Republic as an irrational, radical, Anti-West regime shifts international public debate away from smart policy options toward the “us” versus “them” mantra Bush and Blair espoused after 9/11.

There are indeed lessons to be learned from the Iraq experience. First, intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion was skewed, highly politicized, and taken out of context. Repeated warnings from the intelligence community not to use flawed intelligence were ignored by the Bush administration, according to Paul R. Pillar, national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005. Policy makers in Washington should heed the lessons from Iraq and pay more attention to intelligence officers this time around. There is little evidence to suggest that Iran has made the decision to develop a nuclear weapon capacity. The IAEA Report on Iran released in November 2011 should not be conflated, as there is little reliable evidence to suggest that Iran has recently resumed operations at its nuclear sites, though admittedly if it was weaponizing its behavior might be indistinguishable from its present course. Joseph Cirincione and Elise Connor at the Ploughshares Fund estimate that it would take Iran at least three to five years to weaponize. Though the real concern with Iran’s nuclear program is that it may continue to enrich uranium up to 20 percent, thereby reducing the breakout threshold, should Ayatollah Khomeini and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad decide to weaponize in the near future.

So far, the preferred method in dealing with Iran has been through tightened sanctions. In an effort to choke the regime and force them to negotiate, the Obama administration placed an executive order restricting Iran’s access to international financial institutions. Shashank Joshi, an Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, asserts that the Obama administration is likely to tighten sanctions and continue covert operations against specific targets and sites. Tighter sanctions will continue to strain Iran’s economy, given its heavy dependence on oil exports in the international market. Playing the waiting game will have two desirable effects: first, it gives Washington’s dual-track policy of diplomacy and sanctions enough time to work; and second, it gives military planners additional time to develop comprehensive policy options, should Iran pursue its nuclear weapon ambitions aggressively.

At this stage Iran, like Iraq in 2003, has agreed to the partial admission of IAEA inspectors. Last time however, they were not given legitimate opportunity to verify Saddam’s nuclear ambitions. The U.S. can ill-afford another Iraq, not with the knowledge we have today. But if Washington does not heed the lessons from war-torn Iraq and decides to unilaterally attack Tehran tomorrow, history will not be kind to the United States.

*****

*****

Amal Varghese is a Contemporary Debate Columnist with ACCESS Publications at The Australian Institute of International Affairs .

[Photo provided by Sgt. Jeremy Todd] 

Share/Save

Anonymous's picture
Iran+Iraq War II


No evidence exists for Iranian nuclear weapons. The war hysteria is being driven by a conspiracy theory spiraling out of the IAEA, the USA and Israel. Varghese is dead right: "Given its track record in Iraq, Washington is unlikely to muster international support for a war against Iran." America is in a lose-lose situation vis-a-vis a war with Iran. Nothing now in the public record justifies a casus belli.

Anonymous's picture
More worrying infact is that


More worrying infact is that Israel is pressuring Washington to launch such a war. Tellingly, the Obama administration has shown some restraint in the war mongering department but it may have no choice but to support a limited military air strike on Iran's facilities. Another point my colleague pointed out on which I thought I should address; is whether Israel would unilaterally strike Iran's nuclear facilities. On this point, it is important to remember that Israeli air force capability is no where nearly as proficient as that of the Pentagon, and it is more likely than not that following such an operation, Iran would aggressively move to building a nuclear weapon; moving its operations further beneath ground and in more secret locations. Perhaps this is the only place Washington has some leverage at this stage, given Prime Minister Netanyahu's insistence that Iran is an existential threat; though Ayatollah Khomeini, the Supreme leader of the country continues to maintain that the country is NOT pursuing a nuclear weapons program as it is morally and ethically wrong and fundamentally against Islam's teachings to have such a weapon. A chance of such a strike in numbers? When I asked Joseph Cirincione, an advisor to the State Dept and President of Plough Shares Fund, a nuclear security group in Washington, he gave it a 50/50 chance that Israel will launch such a strike in the next few months before Iran supposedly enters the "Zone of Immunity". What would such a strike look like- I recommend this article by Ehud Eiran : http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137300/ehud-eiran/what-happens-af... For those who are curious as to whether containment is possible if Washington or Israel strike Iran's facilities, I would recommend the article above. Containment strategies would be unlikely to work given Iran's strong ties to proxy networks that would disproportionately harm U.S and Israeli interests in the region, given the decentralized nature of the regime's affilitations with Hezbollah for example. A conventional war is unlikely, and though Washington would "win" such a war, it would come at an enormous cost to both American and Israeli interests in the region. Iran is a sovereign country that is still a party to the NPT and since 2004, there has been little material evidence to suggest that it is pursuing such a program. Don't forget they're legally entitled to enriching their uranium upto 20% under the treaty. Some argue that Iran is following a Japan strategy. Perhaps this is true, even then, Iran as a sovereign country is not partaking in any illegal activity. Israel and Washington's policies may drive Iranian leader's over the edge with their constant war threats. Every possible pressure must be applied on both countries to restrain from such a result. Other articles to look out for: Matthew Kroenig's article: " Best Time to Attack Iran" Colin H. Kahl "Not Time to Attack Iran"
Post new comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. If you have a Gravatar account, used to display your avatar.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.
FALL FUNDRAISER

 

Around WPI

Jihad in Sub-Saharan Africa 

This paper, “Jihad in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenging the Narratives of the War on Terror,” examines the history of Islamic movements in Africa's Sahel region to contextualize current conflicts.

World Economic Roundtable with Vicente Fox 

In this World Economic Roundtable, former Mexican President Vicente Fox discusses his current quest to make his country a hub for technology. 

Intern at World Policy


Want to join our team? Looking for an experience at one of the most highly sought-after internships for ambitious students? Application details here.

 

Al Gore presides over Arctic Roundtable 

As the United States prepares to assume chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015, this inaugural convening of the Arctic Deeply Roundtables launches a vital conversation for our times. 

WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

To learn about the latest in media, programming, and fellowship, subscribe to the World Policy Weekly Newsletter and read through our archives.

World Policy on Facebook

FOLLOW US