Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

The Cuba example was discussed in the knownews note. It is probably a useful case to study.

Apparently Cuban in exile plays a significant role in how US deals with Cuba. Most of them prefer to see the collapse of Cuba. So Cuban in Florida voted for a US president that vows to maintain the embargo.

There is a larger number of of Iranian American or visiting Iranian in US. I do not know whether they think like the Cuban or Chinese in US.
a) if they are like the Cuban, would they stop US from taking the right (i.e. soft-kill) approach? if so, hopefully their vote will not be as concentrated and influential as the Cubans in FL.
b) if they are like the Chinese, they would probably support the "soft-kill" approach. in addition, they could contribute to it, by going back to do business and pulling more students to US, a virtuous cycle. this is probably a group that US could consult with when taking the soft-kill approach.

Here's another item for (doubtless redundant) consideration: from the State side of things, it looks better to be proactive and bring Iran under some sort of regional security umbrella now, before they have the Bomb, than later, when it looks like we've caved in to nuclear blackmail.

It's old-fashioned power politics, televised for the new century.

Breitbart carried the below warning and DRUDGE picked it up today.

Is there anything else Iran can do to guarantee a war starts? Or, do they actually intend to force it to occur, for their own nefarious reasons? I wonder…, where are all those old suit case nukes anyway…

“Iran's supreme leader said Tuesday that the country is ready to transfer its nuclear technology to other countries.”

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/25/D8H736Q00.html

Zbigniew Brzezinski agrees with you Tom.
"Do not attack Iran"
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/04/25/opinion/edzbig.php

A policy is needed and HOPING the Iranians are really rational, in spite of their swaggering around and acting macho, is not a policy.

So what are the choices? This is the way I see it:

1. Direct diplomacy. Send Condi or some other astute diplomat to Tehran to talk, talk, and talk some more. Can we get any agreements from them? Can we coopt their crusade to destroy Israel and then the West? Chances of success? - Low. Worth trying? - Yes. (I assume this is your soft kill plan? Or is your plan more sophisticated?)

2. Multi-lateral diplomacy via France, Germany, UK, and Russia has already struck out.

3. The UN Security Council will probably fail to act because Russia and China will be against it. However, suppose the UN should impose financial sanctions? Would Iran strike back by closing the Straits and unleashing a wave of suicide bombers? If they could successfully close the Straits it would create a lot of global economic pain.(But also for themselves.) Would closing the Straits be an act that would finally unite the West in a strong coalition to bring Iran's regime down? Maybe. A possible 50/50 chance.

4.If all diplomacy fails and Iran continues to act in a threatening manner, could the U.S.unilaterally use conventional bombs to severely damage their nuclear facilties and their command and control structure? Yes. Would we do it? Highly unlikely. - Why? Power = Military Capability + Economic Strength + National Will. The National Will portion of the equation is missing.

5. Could Israel unilaterally damage the Iranian nuclear facilities? Maybe. It might take several days of bombing and some serious Israeli losses to accomplish. Will they do it? Only if they believe they have NO OTHER CHOICE! If they do, most Western countries will be secretly glad they did, but only the U.S. will say so. And what of the reaction from the Muslim world.......and the (gasp) UN? It would put Israel even deeper into the UN and Muslim doghouse. Not something to hope for.

6.If Iran continues working to get an A bomb it could goad the Saudis or others to seek bombs for themselves. This potentially could result in Iran or some other Muslim country either using a missile or handing a bomb to terrorists to hit Israel or Europe. (At this time they have no capability of bombing the U.S. except by a terrorist delivery.) If that happens it could trigger a new World War. Odds of this happening? Low, but still not beyond the pale.

What other options are available?
As Victor Davis Hanson says, "In war there are no good choices, only bad and worse."

To me, the one entity able to defend itself and act decisively in the region is Israel. The obvious seems Israel taking action for the rest of the world (specifically the EU and America, since they are aid-givers and military suppliers) in a pre-emptive strike fashion against Iran. Does this appear like a legitimate scenario to anyone else?

Despite what you say, Tom, hard kill IS an option, and could become a realistic one overnight.

I, like you, don't favor it, and think there is a soft-crush to a brighter future. But discounting the hard kill doesn't take it off the table.

Intensive airstrikes and quick squad marches through Iran are perfectly possible even with today's "smaller" army. Remember about flexibility? About how taking Bagdhad was going to be a slogged out, 12-to-36 week campaign? Try six weeks.

The military option in Iran is very unattractive, but we would have more allies than Iraq, and certainly maintain the power projection capability. See also GWI and Afghanistan. Remarkable achievements of an adaptive military. And this wouldn't be a conquest. It would be a coup de'tat catalyst. Persia has a fantastic and strange and highly educated population. They'd adapt well to a liberation, unlike the fractious Iraq or rural, tribal Afghanistan.

It could be done, it could be miraculous, but would of course be a bloody, bloody affair. I think there are lots of options on the table, and the only inevitable is going to be a confrontation, probably this summer. Don't misunderestimated the current Administration's ability to do the unpopular, but possibly right, thing.