War of the consonants?

Iran may be trying to develop nuclear weapons. If true, this is not good news. Definitely not good news.

But neither is the American response. Worse, the U.S. seems intent upon making the situation more dangerous, not less.

George W. Bush says he wants to "make it absolutely clear that the development of a nuclear weapon in Iran is intolerable," and hints darkly that he will use military force to prevent that. Dick Cheney goes further, saying "we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," heightening the suspicion that the administration considers preemptive attack a viable option, perhaps even the preferred option. Simultaneously, the administration seems to have abandoned a multilateral strategy focused on diplomatic efforts in favor of unilaterally imposed sanctions, while ratcheting up their rhetoric. The odds of war appear to be growing.

Unfortunately, most of the presidential candidates echo this stridency. Rudy Giuliani is quoted as saying the the U.S. should use every lever at is disposal, including a military strike, to prevent Iran form acquiring a nuclear weapon, and one of his principal foreign policy advisors, Norman Podhoretz, is even more bellicose. Hillary Rodham Clinton says she is "not in favor of doing nothing," adding that although she prefers "vigorous diplomacy" she warns that "we should not let them acquire nuclear weapons." Although Barack Obama says he doesn't "think we should be talking about attacking Iran at this point," he warns darkly that "there may come a point where these measures have been exhausted and Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon where we have to consider other options."

The clear implication -- the clear threat -- in all of these statements is that Iran must abandon its nuclear programs or we will attack and destroy them, that Iran must bend to Amerian will or be bombed into submission. Although varying degrees of support for diplomatic efforts are voiced, the common thread among all these political leaders and aspirants is a willingness to launch a preemptive war against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

But why? Even under the worst feasible scenario, Iran poses far less of a threat to the United States or its allies than America's potential threat to Iran. If Iran were to somehow attack the United States with nuclear weapons, Iran would suffer a devastating retaliation which would literally destroy that nation, all of its leaders, and a huge proportion of its people. An attack on Israel would have a similar effect, even without the probable support of American nuclear forces. Nor could Iran escape such deadly consequences if it permitted proxies to use its nuclear weaponry to effect the ultimate terrorist attack on the U.S. Simply put, at its very worst, Iran could not destroy America, but would itself be destroyed if it made the attempt. Iranian leaders surely know that. Although it is appealing to consider the Iranian leadership mad, one can safely assume that the sort of people having the intelligence and acumen to achieve political power have the desire to preserve that power, and their lives, all of which would end the very day that they launched a nuclear attack.

But a preemptive attack against Iran would create massive difficulties for the United States. Iran is a much larger, stronger and richer nation than Iraq, and if media speculation is accurate, Iran has much greater influence within the shadowy world of terrorism than Iraq ever had. Iran would be a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq, yet our concurrent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have already sapped the strength of America's conventional military forces. Moreover, Iran could do much to worsen the conflict in Iraq, and might well be able to bring a war home to the United States through the use of sophisticated terrorism. Further, petroleum supply could be so disrupted as to wreak havoc in the world economy. A preemptive war against Iran would also further isolate the United States from the rest of the world. A preemptive war against Iran would come back to haunt the United States.

If a preemptive attack could pose grave dangers for the United States, might it still be necessary to accept that risk in preference to "tolerating" a nuclear Iran? History provides a clear answer. The truth is that even with a few nuclear weapons, Iran would pose a far lower risk to the United States than did the Soviet Union during the Cold War, or even than China posed before the rapprochement initiated during the Nixon years.

When first the Soviet Union and later China began developing nuclear weapons, belligerant American pundits and politicians called for preemptive war to stop them, but Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon wisely refused their advice, and history proved them right. As perilous as the Cold War was, the world's super powers learned to accept the awesome logic of deterrence, and over time worked to efffectively manage and reduce tensions until finally the Cold War itself collapsed with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. War was averted, to the relief of all, and finally the world emerged from the shadow of nuclear holocaust.

The situation is similar now, though less perilous. Even if Iran develops a nuclear arsenal, deterrence would stay the hands of Iranian leaders, just as surely as it stayed the hands of nuclear powers throughout the Cold War.

Yet if we loose the dogs of war, we will all have a terrible price to pay. It behooves America's contending political leaders to lower the rhetoric, and refocus American efforts on engaging Iranian leaders in constructive, multilateral diplomacy based on respect, toleration, and the identification and pursuit of mutual interests.

Note: posted originally on ketches, yaks & hawks 3 November 2007