The Iran nuclear crisis is hotting up. Iran is moving ever closer to producing nuclear weapons, and as it gets closer, its celebrations become even more extreme and confrontational. The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has made increasingly murderous remarks about America and Israel, and it is strongly rumoured that he believes it is his duty to trigger the judgment day that will usher in the return of the "Mahdi", a messianic figure in Shia Islam. Meanwhile, the Israeli's have said they will "not tolerate" a nuclear armed Iran, and are strongly rumoured to be planning a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear facilities at Bushehr and Nantaz. Meanwhile, Iran has begun beefing up its military, conducting war games and making threats that it will respond if attacked.
In this essay, we shall explore in depth some of the possible options on the table for the Bush administration and their pros and cons.
Option 1: Do nothingThis option is reminiscent of what the Bush administration chose to do with North Korea. When Bush branded North Korea part of an "Axis of Evil" in 2002 and made clear his desire to seek "regime change" there, the North Koreans rapidly set about acquiring nuclear weapons. In the mean time they bought time by entering into negotiations they had no intention of honouring and making typically murderous dramatic threats, such as promising to turn South Korea into "A sea of fire" in the event of a US attack. Soon North Korea had nuclear weapons, and the Bush administration quietly went away. There will never be an Iraq-style regime changing invasion of North Korea by America because North Korea's possession of nukes now makes that an impossibility; no US president would ever survive politically if American troops were killed by the tens of thousand and/or if Taepodong ICBM nuclear missiles found their way onto US soil, which they have the range to do.
Pros: The advantage of doing nothing with Iran is, in the first instance a pro because it avoids war. Wars are very expensive, both in terms of their vast costs and in terms of their human casualties; 50,000 Iraqi's have died since the 2003 invasion, over 2,000 coalition troops have died and 20,000 coalition troops wounded. Also, wars are politically expensive. The infamous "body bag" factor shows that as US casualties mount in war, the president of the day suffers falling popularity. Not good for re-election. Another advantage of doing nothing with Iran is it would help downplay accusations from some corners that Bush is a "war monger".
Cons: The Bush Doctrine states that the USA's greatest threat in the C21st is when regimes with a history of hatred towards America and a history of backing international terrorism acquire WMD's and pass them on to terrorist groups to use against America. The only way to deal with this threat is to pre-emptively invade these "rogue states" and bring about "regime change" in them. Iran is a text book example of a "rogue state" in this regard, indeed, a much better example than Iraq or North Korea. If Bush does nothing with Iran, then the Bush doctrine has ceased to have any foundation.
Furthermore, if Bush does nothing, this could embolden other unpleasant regimes (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela etc) to develop nukes. North Korea proved to the world that if you have nukes, you don't get invaded. If like Iraq you don't have nukes, you do. These regimes will therefore simply take the steps needed to acquire nukes, and the Bush doctrine, set up to prevent nuclear weapons falling into the hands of dictators, could actually spur more nations to go nuclear as a means of ensuring the Bush doctrine is never used against them.
Option 2: Sanctions against IranPros: Sanctions look nice on paper. They send a clear message of disgust towards the recipient of the sanctions, whilst not being a direct act of war. Also, they can grind down the nation in questions economy, which has two pleasing side effects. Firstly, it makes it harder for the regime in question to find the money for it's WMD programmes, which are certainly not cheap. Secondly, as sanctions bite, and/or the regime cuts back on its peoples needs to fund it's WMD programmes, the population begins to dislike it's government, increasing the chance the people will topple it, like what happened across Eastern Europe in the late 1980's and early 1990's. This provides the Bush administration with lots of great images of celebrating people over throwing their despotic regimes (great for using in re-election broadcasts) and also means US military deaths do not happen, as the need for US invasion vanishes with the revolution.
Cons: Sanctions however are not perfect. Sanctions look good on paper, but regimes can always find a way around them, especially if it works through third parties (do the words "Oil for Food" sound familiar?). Furthermore, its unlikely sanctions would pass the UN, given the large Islamic vote at the UN, and also the fact that nations frosty to US interests such as France and Russia could veto them on the Security Council. Sanctions also tend to hurt the most vulnerable in the target nation, as harrowing images of malnourished Iraqi children throughout the 1990's proved. Additionally, as was proved in Britain during the 1940's submarine blockades, hardship amongst the civilian population, far from turning people against its government (which can always claim any hardship is not its fault), can actually
increase the people's loyalty to the regime, and stiffen their resolve to beat the nation responsible for them.
Option 3: Surgical air strikes against nuclear facilities
Pros: Firstly, surgical air strikes are relatively cheap to do, certainly much cheaper than the cost of a full scale invasion, yet they achieve similar results. The US could use a combination of F-16's and Tomahawk cruise missiles to deliver bunker buster strikes to pin point locations in Iran's nuclear infrastructure. In just a few hours of attacks, Iran's nuclear programme could be could back decades, and the regime, which has boasted about its nuclear prowess for some time on state television, would be humiliated. Surgical strikes on nuclear facilities also have a good track record; in 1988, Israel pre-emptively carried out surgical air strikes against Iraq's Osirak nuclear weapons facility, at a point when Saddam was on the verge of acquiring his first nuclear bomb. The attack left the plant in ruins. Had that strike not happened, Saddam would have had operational nuclear weapons in time for Gulf War I. Certainly makes you think....
Cons: It is now known that during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, the US considered pre-emptive surgical air strikes against nuclear weapons sites in Cuba. What eventually made them decide against that course of action was Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis Le May could not guarantee the attacks could destroy
all the facilities, and so much as a single one that was missed or not fully destroyed would have been used against America in a counter attack. If the US could not guarantee hitting just a few sites on the tiny island of Cuba just a few hundred miles off the US coast, how much more true is it of the vast nation of Iran? Furthermore, the attacks would kill hundreds of Russian nationals, who are known to be involved with the Iranian nuclear programme, provoking confrontation with Russia. There is also the very real possibility that bombs could go astray and hit civilian targets ("collateral damage" does not look good on CNN). Also, if (as is very possible) any US planes were shot down, and their crews had to bail out over Iran, their safety would be anything but guaranteed. Assuming they were not killed by lynch mobs or the troops who captured them, the air men could be executed by the Iranian government, as happened in 1942 when the Japanese executed several "Doolittle Raid" airmen who had bailed out over Japan.
Option 4: Invade Iran and bring about "Regime change"Pros: This option is useful, as the bulk of America's offensive force is already in the Middle East, and therefore is already ideally placed to launch an invasion of Iran. Also, there are many ethnic and religious groups within Iran (e.g. Baluchistani's and Parsees) who would cheerfully help attack Iranian forces, thinning them out and making it hard for them to focus on fighting the US. Furthermore, it would topple yet another potential enemy of America, and justify the Bush doctrine. With the Islamist regime in Tehran deposed, funding for the hundreds of terrorist groups Iran backs around the world (such as Hezbollah) would dry up over night, as would their supply of Iranian weaponry. With Iran under US control, the pincers would tighten around Osama Bin Laden in (one assumes) Waziristan, who would find himself trapped between US forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan and then Iran. If Bush could bow out in 2008 having toppled the 9/11 backing Taliban, surrounded then trapped America's most wanted man ever, and having dealt with long time US enemies Iraq
and Iran along the way, then the Republicans would romp home to electoral victory.
Cons: Iran is not like Iraq. When the US attacked Iraq in 2003, the Iraqi's were weakened by ten years of crippling sanctions, and had suffered the loss of most of their heavy military equipment in Gulf War I. They had no air force, and no real navy to speak of. Their generals were corrupt and couldn't wait to surrender, nor could most of its infantry. Iraq's terrain is flat, and excellent for quick movement of troops and supplies. Within a few weeks, Saddam had been over thrown, and it was "Mission Accomplished".
This is not the case with Iran. Iran is four times the size of Iraq, and has very unusual geography, including steep cliffs and jagged mountains. Iran also has nearly three times the population of Iraq, which is very heavy on fighting aged males (a result of the pro-natalist policies of Khomeini in the early 1980's). This provides the Iranians with a huge pool of men to dip into for conscripts. Also, the Iranians have a track record of fanatical resistance to invaders. During the Iran-Iraq war, thousands of Iranians joined Basanji and Pasdaran suicide brigades, whose job was to clear mine fields for the tanks by marching across them. Even Iran's children got involved, and many were urged to go to the front by their parents, issuing them with plastic keys made in Taiwan which they told them was the key to Paradise if they died in battle. These are not the type of people you want to be fighting.
Also, even if/when the war was won, winning the peace would be even harder. In Iraq, it has been nigh impossible to reconcile the demands of the Kurds, Shia and Sunni factions. Iran is even more ethnically diverse than Iraq, and this, added to the possibility of US proxy indigenous forces used for the invasion suddenly wanting their own way and turning violent is a possibility. It has happened before, when the Taliban stopped being a proxy for us against the USSR and turned violent.
Conclusion
The Iran nuclear crisis is not going away. Even as we speak, uranium is being enriched for nuclear weapons, and the Iranian military are preparing plans to fight a defensive war. This is the most serious test of Bush' presidency. We have looked at the options he has, none of which are particularly appealing ones, but he must choose the right one or Amhadinejad, who once said "Israel should be wiped off the map" will soon have the weapons to make that threat come to life, and Ahmadinejad who so craves the armageddon may very well just have it...