Iran - this is the strategic reality

[Rick]

Iran - this is the strategic reality, like it or not

http://www.financialsense.com/stormw...2008/0516.html

Statesmen in the West are concerned that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Iran officially denies any such attempt. “We are developing peaceful nuclear power,” they declare. As if to fuel fears and suspicions abroad, the Iranians refuse the kind of oversight that would ensure their program is peaceful. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wonders why the Iranians insist on enriching uranium on their own terms. Why would an oil rich country risk confrontation with the United States to develop a few nuclear power plants it doesn’t need?

The reader might ask why any of this should be a problem. Why shouldn’t Iran develop nuclear power and nuclear weapons? The United States and Russia have thousands of nuclear warheads. Britain, France, China and Israel have hundreds of such weapons. Pakistan is building nuclear weapons in competition with India. The problem has everything to do with Iran’s ideological orientation, and Iranian support for Islamic terrorism. Iran’s president has suggested that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Other Iranian officials have publicly mused that Israel could be eliminated with nuclear strikes and the Muslim world could survive Israeli retaliation because the Muslim world is extensive and populous. Such a strike could conceivably be worthwhile. Statements of this kind are troubling, and President George W. Bush has vowed to block Iran’s nuclear program. It is no secret that the U.S. has prepared a military option if Iran refuses to back down. Already the Americans have imposed sanctions on Iran.

The Israelis are also worried, and former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made repeated statements about an “Iranian threat” that must be dealt with decisively. He does not mince words. According to Netanyahu, we are obliged to believe those who promise to wipe us out. He points to the example of Hitler, who publicly threatened to eradicate the Jews from Europe. Speaking before the annual United Jewish Communities Assembly, he said: “It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs.” Something must be done before it is too late. “Israel would certainly be the first stop on Iran’s tour of destruction,” he explained, “but at the planned production rate of 25 nuclear bombs a year … [the Iranian arsenal] will be directed against ‘the Big Satan,’ the U.S., and the ‘moderate Satan,’ Europe.” In criticism aimed at the international community, Netanyahu said that no one cared about the fate of the Jews under Hitler, “and no one seems to care now.” The Iranian nuclear program, he warned, “goes way beyond the destruction of Israel…. It’s a global program in the service of a mad ideology.” Netanyahu believes an Israeli strike against Iran may be necessary.

The situation in the Middle East is coming to a head. President Bush appears to agree with Netanyahu’s argument. According to experts, American preparations for a military confrontation with Iran have been underway for years. Everyone knows the United States has the cruise missiles and bombers needed to smash Iran’s deepest nuclear program after trashing the Iranian air defense grid. There is no need for an invasion of Iran. A simple air strike will solve the Iranian nuclear problem once and for all. But the problem is not so simple.

Would the U.S. President bomb Iran after Russian leader Vladimir Putin warned against such a move last year? President Bush appears to dismiss Putin’s warnings, refusing to believe that his “friend” would bring Russia into direct conflict with the United States. Never mind the fact that Russia has armed Iran with anti-ship missiles. Never mind the fact that Iran’s nuclear program wouldn’t have gotten off the ground without Russian help. Look at the price of oil, which Russia is selling in large quantities on the world market. It is in Russia’s interest to make things messy in the Middle East.

Iran is not a pushover country, like Iraq. In any military showdown the Iranians have a trump card. They can close the Strait of Hormuz. Given the high price of oil today, would the U.S. President create a battle zone around the world’s most sensitive oil artery? If oil reaches $200 per barrel the global economy will sputter. How will the U.S. economy handle gasoline at $10 per gallon? Perhaps all of this helps explain why President Bush has been putting 70,000 barrels of oil per day into the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Iran has several thousand medium and short range mobile ballistic missiles. This considerable strike power could inflict serious damage on regional oil facilities and infrastructure. Iran also deploys large numbers of anti-ship missiles, and has received delivery of Russia’s SSN-X-26 Yakhont supersonic cruise missiles (with a range of 300 kilometers). This missile was designed to wipe out U.S. carrier battle groups. How could oil tankers safely enter or exit the Persian Gulf when the entrance is within Iranian missile range?

American air power cannot destroy the Iranian missile threat to the Persian Gulf in a timely fashion. Missiles with mobile launchers (like those deployed by Iran) are difficult to track and destroy. Furthermore, Iran’s air defenses are superior to Iraq’s air defenses. American pilots may not have the same advantages they enjoy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even if Bush refrains from bombing Iran, the Israelis are almost certain to launch airstrikes of their own. Such strikes would set off a major war in the Middle East. According to Michael Hirsch, writing in the May 7 edition of Newsweek, “a number of circumstances are aligning to make an Israeli strike on Iran more likely before the end of 2008.” The Israelis apparently believe that Iran will have nuclear weapons by 2009 or 2010. They believe that diplomacy has failed. They fear that President Bush’s successor will prove weak-willed. They see Iran’s retaliatory strength building. Time is therefore running out.

President Bush, on his side, understands what the Israelis are obliged to do. And yet, however ready he may be to strike Iran he cannot effectively act without Congressional approval. Already Congress is threatening to withhold funding for military operations. Even the Republicans in Congress have lost their stomach for Middle East confrontation. In a surprising setback for the President’s war preparations the U.S. Senate voted 97 to 1 to stop putting oil in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through the rest of the year. The House approved a similar bill by a vote of 385 to 25. President Bush cannot effectively veto these measures because they were passed by overwhelming majorities.

It is unwise for a president to attack a country when his own country is not united. It is unwise to attack Iran when Russia is supporting Iran. It is unwise to make the world’s most sensitive oil artery into a war zone. The U.S. economy is already in trouble. Oil has gone above $120 per barrel. There are limitations to power, and it may be difficult for President Bush to accept those limitations. Will he strike Iran?

The arguments for striking Iran are reasonable arguments. Iran is ruled by dangerous fanatics who are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. But Iran already possesses a world-stopping capability. Iran has deadly weapons aimed at the world’s most vital oil artery. If there are food riots in the Third World because of high oil prices today, imagine what will happen if Iran shuts off the Strait of Hormuz tomorrow.

This is the strategic reality, like it or not.