Give Iran Positive Incentives to Halt Its Nuclear Program
by Ivan Eland | View comments |
Print This Post
A more restrained U.S. foreign policy in the Persian Gulf area and a U.S. security guarantee for Iran are the key positive incentives that are missing from the U.N. Security Council’s batch of proposals.
The United Nations Security Council has recently sent Iran a package of incentives to encourage that nation to halt its nuclear program. The proposals included selling Iran light water nuclear technology, civilian aircraft, and spare parts. Although the United States participated in this initiative and has agreed to directly meet with the Iranians on the nuclear issue — both positive developments — it may need to go further if there is to be any hope that Iran will arrest its nuclear activities.
The Bush administration alleges that Iran is secretly working on a nuclear weapons program in violation of its commitment not to do so under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran denies this accusation and claims its right under that same treaty to pursue peaceful nuclear energy. After the U.S. intelligence failure on Iraq’s alleged, but non-existent, nuclear program, the United States and the world should not be so cocksure that Iran’s nuclear program has a military purpose. In fact, although the International Atomic Energy Agency has concerns about the Iranian nuclear program, it has so far found no evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. The Iranians may not have yet decided to “weaponize” their program.
Israeli saber rattling and the blundering U.S. invasion of Iraq, which scared the Iranians into thinking that they might be next on the U.S. hit list, would logically lead Iran to seek nuclear weapons as rapidly as possible to restrain those powers’ actions. But Iran also may have an incentive not to weaponize its nuclear program. Iran is the 800-pound gorilla in the Persian Gulf region. If it got nuclear weapons, this might spur Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other neighboring states to go down that route. Such developments would essentially nullify Iran’s advantage.
So perhaps Iran can be convinced either not to take the nuclear route or to give up any weapons program that it has already started. But giving Iran negative incentives is likely to be costly to the United States. Military options are all likely to be counterproductive. The invasion of Iran — much larger, more populous, and more rugged than Iraq — would make the Mesopotamian quagmire look tame. Air strikes would probably fail to knock out Iran’s nuclear program, because U.S. intelligence is likely to be imperfect (to say the least) on the location of all the facilities. Such attacks would merely make Iran work overtime to get nuclear weapons. Also, Iran could retaliate by urging Shi’ite militias in Iraq to attack U.S. troops, turning loose the Hezbollah terror group on U.S. targets around the world, or interdicting Western oil shipments that are transported through the Strait of Hormuz.
Economic sanctions, another negative incentive that has received a lukewarm reaction from Security Council members China and Russia, are likely to be almost as counterproductive. Like military action, they will merely cause the demographic bulge of more pro-Western Iranian youth to rally around the theocratic regime. The Iranian government can also redirect the hurt of sanctions onto those in Iranian society that are least able to bear them. The economic effects of sanctions usually dissipate over time as cheating becomes lucrative for foreign companies and nations. Sanctions are often sold as an alternative to war, but can often lead to war — for example, the first Gulf War in 1991 and the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989.
Thus, positive incentives are the best chance of persuading Iran that it doesn’t need nuclear weapons. A more restrained U.S. foreign policy in the Persian Gulf area (including a rapid U.S. withdrawal from Iraq) and a U.S. security guarantee for Iran are the key positive incentives that are missing from the U.N. Security Council’s batch of proposals. Because the radical groups that Iran supports do not focus their attacks on U.S. targets, the United States can afford to make such a guarantee. Also, if Iran did eventually obtain nuclear weapons, a smaller U.S. footprint in the Persian Gulf would make it far less likely that the Iranians would come into conflict with the United States and use them to attack the faraway U.S. territory. The United States should also offer to fully normalize U.S.-Iranian relations — including — cultural, political, and economic ties — much as it did with Libya, and seek to stem nuclear weapons proliferation regionally, which would include that of Israel.
At this late date, after numerous U.S. policy blunders, even these added incentives may not discourage Iran from getting nuclear weapons. In that case, the United States may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Given the distance between the two nations, the Europeans and Iran’s neighbors should be more worried about this development than should the United States.
ieland@independent.org
http://www.independent.org
Read more articles by Ivan Eland
I was just about to point out how absurd Mr. Eland's assertions and predictions are when I realized I would be the fool. This author can't be a real person. April 1 was three months ago. Can you guys at IC please stop with the jokes?
Comment by Nick | July 3, 2006
Ah, yes. Repeating mistakes in North Korea would be a real good idea. Particularly, when the Iranians lack any semblance of restraint or peaceful intent, and welcome the death of their children, the more violent, the better.
Ahmedinajad, and the supreme ayotollah leader, make Kim Jong Il look like Gandhi.
Guess we better move Israel to Europe, huh?
Some learned experts just love getting our collective butts kicked, over and over.
ROFLMAO.
Comment by Layer Seven | July 3, 2006
Will The West allow Israel to be a holocaust…AGAIN!? I prefer it be done furtively, but certain people need to stop building if fond of breathing or there will certainly NEED to be more than a bit of burning to do. Espionage, coup, or preemptive attacks. This situation screams the definition by any means necesarry.
Comment by J. Muscoreil | July 3, 2006
The preceding comments are dismissive of the author's conclusions but offer no rebuttals to his arguments. Is this because the arguments themselves are above reproach? Can anybody offer any well-reasoned rebuttals to the arguments offered in this article?
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 3, 2006
Simple, his approach is proven to fail.
Comment by Layer Seven | July 3, 2006
We cannot keep giving in to Iran, enough is enough. Its now apparent to Iran and North Korea that all they have to do is pretend to up their testing or research and the US will make new and better offers. Why is North Korea planning more testing? Because they see the deals we keep offering Iran. This is ridiculous we have to draw the line somewhere. This foreign policy is straight from the Clinton strategy book… it gets nothing accomplished because nothing is done.
Comment by Jrad | July 3, 2006
Very well, then if diplomacy has been proven to fail, I take it that you would prefer a military solution? Would you prefer bombing, invasion, or a nuclear attack? Please explain why you believe this would be more effective than diplomacy.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 3, 2006
Perhaps if you hadn't ruined our position to negotiate, those options would not now be necessary.
We'll let you pick.
Comment by Layer Seven | July 3, 2006
Gee, I didn't realize that I had ruined our position to negotiate. When did I do that?
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 3, 2006
"Such attacks would merely make Iran work overtime to get nuclear weapons."
Boy I'm sure glad Iran isn't working overtime right now to get nukes. This article draws its conclusions which overlooking some very salient facts. First and foremost that the president of Iran is a religious fanatic who believes beyond a shadow of a doubt in the return of the 12th Imam. The consequences of this belief
being the final showdown between good and evil with the West in the role of the former. How could any clear thinking individual believe that Irans ultimate goal is not the actual acquistion of nuclear weapons? The following quote:
"After the U.S. intelligence failure on Iraq’s alleged, but non-existent, nuclear program, the United States and the world should not be so cocksure that Iran’s nuclear program has a military purpose."
is absurd in the face of statements made by Ahmedinajad himself. How can Iran wipe Israel off the face of the map with civilian airline technology and light water reactors? As hard as it may be to stomach, military action against Irans nuclear development sites is the only rational choice. Without question we will not get every sitye or destroy all the development technology. But that is hardly required. What is required is setting the Iranians back far enough to allow for political forces to overcome the Mullahs and their mad reign.
Comment by Robert Vaughn | July 4, 2006
Thank you for your reasoned comments on this topic. I offer two observations about them:
First, I suspect that you assign too much weight to Ahmedinajad's statements. The Iranian President does not have the kind of power that the American President enjoys. While his statements are appalling and he certainly has influence over some policy, the internal dynamics of the Iranian government render it unwise to regard his statements as definitive.
I agree with you that Iran has been and is continuing to pursue nuclear weapons technology. I further agree that we must assign a high priority to preventing this from happening. However, your conclusion that military action is the only rational choice assumes that military action will prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. The evidence available to us suggests that military action will fail to achieve our objectives. Consider:
1. We do not have good intelligence of the locations of Iranian nuclear facilities.
2. We do know that the Iranian nuclear facilities are decentralized, making the task that much more difficult.
3. Some of the Iranian nuclear facilities are in populated areas, guaranteeing that a military strike against them will generate substantial civilian casualties. Thus, if we make such a strike, we will inflame Iranian opinion against us all the more.
4. We know that the Iranians have been hardening some of their facilities against airstrikes.
5. Iranian air defenses are deeper and more substantial than Iraqi air defenses; before initiating airstrikes against Iranian facilities, we would need to conduct an extensive campaign to neutralize those defenses.
6. American casualties in such a campaign would be extensive.
7. The Iranians have threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz should we attack them. Their threat is quite credible. They could probably trigger a world economic crisis by cutting off the flow of oil.
8. An attack against Iran will not lead to political disunity; on the contrary, it will unite Iranians against us. Do you really think that Iranians would react to an attack on their soil in any way differently than Americans reacted to 9/11?
Military action against Iran is not a rational option; it will only make matters worse. Yes, diplomatic action does not look very promising, either. We are in a deep hole, and it is unlikely that we will achieve our objectives. Had we used more forethought in the past, we might not have found ourselves in this deep hole; for now, we must simply accept the consequences of our past foolishness, do the best we can with the lousy hand we have to play, and resolve to exercise greater wisdom in our future foreign policy.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 4, 2006
We should seek by all means in our power to avoid war, by analyzing possible causes, by
trying to remove them, by discussion in a spirit of collaboration and good will. I cannot
believe that such a program would be rejected by the people of this country, even if it
does mean the establishment of personal contact with the dictators.
-Neville Chamberlain
Comment by Corey | July 5, 2006
Your points are well taken Chris but I still believe that military action is the only logical choice given the consequences of a nuclear Iran. By your own admission they want nukes. Diplomatic action will fail to prevent their acquisition, have no doubt on this point. So we have two choices. Buy ourselves time by destroying what they already have or living with a nuclear armed Iran.
To understand, anticipate and defeat an enemy you must know his mindset and his culture. This enemy wants to be the primary regional power in the Middle East. He also wants global reach and control as his religion tells him is his inherent right. Nuclear weapons are the key to both of these objectives. The hardships endured by military action now, when we are strong and they are relatively weak, will seem a mere pittance of the price that will be paid should Iran attain nukes and attempt to realize their objectives. That was the choice the West faced with the rise of Nazism and the West blinked. WWII was the price we paid for that blink. Blinking again cannot be an option.
Comment by Robert Vaughn | July 5, 2006
OK, Robert, let's count up the price you're proposing we pay. First, we have to acknowledge that airstrikes will not accomplish the objective of shutting down the Iranian nuclear program. They will delay it, but not prevent it. The only means we have for shutting it down is an invasion. So let's estimate the costs of an invasion of Iran:
1. It will require at least 500,000 troops (probably more), too large for our Army to provide. We'll need to re-instate the draft.
2. The total cost of an invasion plus occupation will probably be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion.
3. American casualties will amount to maybe 10,000 dead and 100,000 permanently handicapped.
4. The Iranians will block the Strait of Hormuz for several weeks, possibly even several months; this will cause the price of oil to double or triple and trigger a worldwide depression.
5. Popular support for terrorism in other Islamic nations (in the form of recruits and donations) will increase, and Islamic governments will terminate all cooperation with us on anti-terrorism efforts.
6. The rest of the world will condemn us. Support for American diplomatic initiatives will disappear and even Britain will abandon us. The Europeans will accelerate efforts to establish their own diplomatic and military position independent of our own. China will be the primary beneficiary of the collapse of our diplomatic position, and will expand its diplomatic positions through the Shanghai Group and other such initiatives.
7. The dollar will be rejected by the Saudis as their primary trade denomination, most likely to be replaced by the euro, the yen, and the yuan. This will cost the US an estimated 1% in annual GDP growth. OPEC might impose an oil embargo against us, in which case nobody else will come to our aid. Who would? The Venezuelans? The Russians? The Strategic Oil Reserves would last a few months, and then our economy would simply collapse.
Are you prepared to state that these costs are acceptable? Are you so certain that diplomatic efforts will fail that you are willing to take this route over the diplomatic route?
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 5, 2006
What do 6 million dead Jews cost? How much does it cost to stop genocide? What would you do If I told you I wouldn't burn down your house just so long as I can do what I want to your wife? Houses cost a lot of money! If our cause is just, the Almighty will provide all that is required. Be not afraid, my friend.
Comment by J. Muscoreil | July 5, 2006
J. Muscoreil, you argue that we should reject rationalism and instead rely upon faith in God. That argument works among those who share your religious beliefs, but has zero traction with those who prefer to decide political questions with logic rather than faith. Besides, Mr. Ahmedinajad is using exactly the same argument to advance his opposing claims.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 5, 2006
There is no religion that demands fidelity at the edge of a sword. Christianity is to sacrifice yourself for love of others. It's not power-driven. Your utilitarean view of real polotic would suggest that the missionary zeal of Western Civilzation have stopped for fear of upsetting someone and calculating only the cost, but forgetting the cause and the cross. The argument you make would have justified cowardice in the face of an unknown world (the hemisphere you reside in), Naploean's France, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany, and not too mention the plight of slaves in this country and civil rights 100 years later. I appreciate your hesitancy and reluctance to shed blood. Still, we will be accountable for the good we omiited to do. Oil prices, the world's contempt, and the machinations of evil will never come up during Our Great Dialogue. I know you are wise enough to know there's a difference between the 12th Imam (Prophet of the Apocalypse, or so says the insane..) and The Way, The Truth, and The Life. God Bless You, my friend.
Comment by J. Muscoreil | July 5, 2006
Two notions that have been fleshed out of this argument are:
1) Diplomacy as it exists right now is essentially impotent. The proposal as presented to Iran is loaded with incentives, but no real penalties. All carrots, no sticks. How do we convince the mullahs to cease and desist if there is no realistic means of forcing compliance.
2) Military strikes will result in nothing short of a political catastrophe and a strategic nightmare for the reasons Chirs enumerated above.
Like it or not, yes, we do have to face the eventual reality of having to live with a nuclear armed Iran. And that will lead to the dangerous game of deterrence.
Comment by Mike | July 5, 2006
We must not believe the Arab-Israeli conflict is a misunderstanding. It is one people seeking the complete and total annihilation of the other. One side wants a historical sliver while another a hellish submission. If we don't lead some action against Iran, Israel will go it alone and justifiably so. The world needs America. We can do quite nicely without the U.N., international conglomerates, and envy-as-foreign policy. It is only will and might that is understood among the savages and despots that occupy some of the rat holes in the community of nations. We should not fear men, but God. It took Hitler 15 years to destroy 90% of the world's Jews. Lord help us, this madman could do the same to Israel in 15 minutes, and this Tyrant has promised to do so, publicly! How could anyone be a party to that?
Comment by J. Muscoreil | July 5, 2006
Mike, while diplomacy has accomplished nothing to date, there remains a possibility that it will eventually yield fruit. I suspect that China has given Iran a guarantee that it will veto any UN sanctions against Iran. However, in return, the Chinese will expect something, and my guess is that they'll force the Iranians to come around once the US has been demonstrated to be impotent in this matter. That way China comes out as the savior of the world, and America comes out as the warmongering, impotent dolt. So we'll end up with egg on our faces but the Iranians will not get a bomb. That, at least, is my guess as to how things will come out over the next five years.
J. Muscoreil, I can only sigh and acknowledge that you and I will never be able to reason together.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 5, 2006
Chris- You are probably not too far off in that assessment. ..and if we end up with "egg on our faces" as the price for the Iranians not getting the bomb, I can live with that. But I am not sure I see what the Chinese can do to force Iran's hand on this issue (beyond UN filibuster). Moreover, I see the Iranians taking advantage of the West's hard and fast adherence to diplomacy as a stalling tactic. It's not good policy to depend too much on the Chinese Wildcard.
Comment by Mike | July 5, 2006
We all hope for happily-ever-afters, so, however it is accomplished, let us hope for the best. Reason. Chris, you seem to be well read. May I suggest you thumb thru Thomas Aquinas', "Summa Theologica". You might be surprised where the engine (and God-given ability) reason leads you. Happy Trails!
Comment by J. Muscoreil | July 6, 2006
OK Chris, invasion is NOT required. What is required is the systematic destruction of Iran's nuclear development technology and the degredation of their air defenses. They build up their nuke technology. We blow it up. Not 100% of it. Not even 90% of it. They try to build it up again, spending time and resources. We blow it up again. And again. And again if need be. You bring up a solution (invasion) that nobody is calling for and use it as a straw man to argue against military action.
I think you also misunderstand the relationship of Shiite Iran with the rest of the Middle East and Europe for that matter. The primarily Arab Sunni Middle East is going to voice protest of course. But do you truly think over the long term that they will put their interests (some monetary, some not) at stake because Persian nuclear technology has been destroyed? Hardly. The same goes for the Europeans, who unlike ourselves find themselves within range of Iranian ICBMs. There are many parties in the ME and elsewhere who have as much desire as ourselves if not more to see the Iranians not go nuclear. For this reason along with the effectiveness of airstrikes over the long term I wouldn't lie awake at night worrying about America's economic collapse or all the other dire predictions you note. Once again, an unstable religious nut has made his desire for war in the ME with nukes clear. Are you really willing to risk giving diplomacy the primary role to prevent this?
Comment by Robert Vaughn | July 8, 2006
Robert, you argue that airstrikes will suffice to prevent the Iranians from building a bomb. I disagree. Airstrikes can make an Iranian nuclear more expensive, but they can't accomplish our objective of preventing their acquisition of a bomb. The Iranians have a great many ways to insure that airstrikes will fail:
1. Harden targets. If you put them deep underground, they are immune to airstrikes. Yes, we are developing various ground-penetrating munitions, but the effectiveness of these munitions remains questionable. And they can always go deeper.
2. Defend targets. If they know we're coming, they can surround their targets with so much air defense that we simply can't get through. The counter-tactic is the stand-off attack on the air defenses. Unfortunately, this tactic takes time. You attack the air defenses, then evaluate the results, then attack again. It's a slow business, taking several months in the case of the two Iraq wars. And it's even harder when they know exactly what we're going to attack.
3. Disperse targets. There is nothing in a nuclear weapons program that requires all the components to be in one place. You could build a pretty good program with a dozen centrifuges apiece in little shops, ferrying the uranium hexaflouride gas from shop to shop in small trucks. This also hides the best way of finding the enrichment facility, the power lines. I would disperse targets all over Tehran so that the power consumption and traffic patterns are hidden in the larger patterns. Which brings us to the next point:
4. Put targets close to civilians. That way any bombing campaign will kill lots of civilians — very bad PR for the attacker.
5. Hide targets. This is by far the most effective method. The attacker can't hit what he doesn't know about. It's not difficult to hide this technology. They could even make much of it semi-mobile, moving facilities around every few weeks. We'd never be able to locate enough of it to stop them.
I agree that the Europeans and the Arabs take a dim view of Iran's nuclear ambitions. But this is an argument for diplomacy, not military action. Certainly it is perverse to argue that these diplomatic assets will NOT be sufficient for success through diplomacy, but WILL be sufficient to protect us against the diplomatic costs of unilateral military action.
Lastly, do not underestimate the ability of the Iranians to disrupt oil shipments out of the Gulf. They have already deployed their high-speed torpedos, against which there is no defense. They could use short-range missiles to attack oil facilities in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. They could use fifth-columnists to further the damage. They don't need to destroy every last tanker and every last refinery. They need only do enough damage that the price of oil goes above $100/bbl. And they could probably get it up to $150/bbl. At that price, the world economy really starts to suffer. And guess who'd get the blame? Not the Iranians.
Comment by Chris Crawford | July 8, 2006