What To Say The Day After The Iranian Bomb

David Sanger, who does national-security Kremlinology like no other, identifies what seems like a problem for deterring a nuclear Iran:

The big hitch in these containment strategies is that they are completely useless if Iran ever slips a bomb, or even some of its newly minted uranium fuel, to a proxy — Hezbollah, Hamas or some other terrorist group — raising the problem of ascertaining a bomb’s return address. When the Obama administration ran some tabletop exercises soon after coming to office, it was shocked to discover that the science of nuclear forensics was nowhere near as good in practice as it was on television dramas. So if a bomb went off in some American city, or in Riyadh or Tel Aviv, it could be weeks or months before it was ever identified as Iranian. Even then, confidence in the conclusion, officials say, might be too low for the president to order retaliation.

A problem for forensics, to be sure. It doesn't have to be a problem for strategy. 

The day after an Iranian nuclear test -- we're stipulating here, of course, that one is forthcoming; this whole post is about worst-case scenarios, understand? -- the President of the United States might issue this simple declaration:

The nuclear test by the Iranian regime, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, has forced us to face our worst fears since 9/11: a terrorist group obtaining a weapon of mass destruction. Because it is not always possible to immediately ascertain the origin of such a weapon, it shall be the policy of the United States to hold Iran accountable for any such radiological or nuclear incident. The regime must understand that any such incident will bring massive retaliation. We desire peace with the dignified Iranian people. This policy is the surest method to achieve it, under the circumstances that the Iranian regime has imposed upon the world.

Problems with this scenario? Let me hear them. I suppose one objection might be that in practice, it might discount a hijacking from a Pakistani Econoline of Death. Perhaps. But that doesn't seem like a fatal objection. Statements of deterrence must be declarative and unambiguous in order to convince the target of deterrence not to take any five steps that precede the action the deterring power seeks to prevent. We can have a separate Pakistan policy while making such a declaration. 

And as long as we're crafting strategy in a worst-case scenario circumstance, it ought to be possible to craft a Mideast policy that breaks in a more liberal American direction. Neither the Gulf States nor Israel desire a nuclear Iran. That's a lot of leverage for American power.

The United States can say to all states involved that preserving a Mideast coalition to deter and contain is its paramount regional security objective. Accordingly, no member of that coalition can take any step that threatens that coalition. To Gulf states with significant Shiite populations, like Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, governments must liberalize -- visibly -- in order to prevent catastrophic internal instability. To Israel, the Israeli government must refrain from any unilateral action (i.e., bombing Iran) that might have consequences for the frontline Gulf states; and it must remove the biggest source of internal tension within the coalition, the occupation of the West Bank. 

Too ambitious? Maybe. But not if you're willing to wield American power. 

Comments

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=571076365]

Umm, worlds leading sponsor of terrorism? Care to back that up with some figures? Cause I think Pakistan and Saudi may be contenders for the title...

[Marshall]

What you suggest would create an opportunity for other nukie states who see Iran as a threat ... Pakistan and who else, hmmm? ... to get the US to do their dirty work for them. (And of course in the aftermath of such retaliation, we would NEVER get the correct forensics on the table.)

Perhaps the time for such a declaration would be before the Iranian test. Actually I don't know that a declaration is required; that would seem to be the situation we are in already.

[mikey]

That's exactly the problem. The net result would be the US setting herself up to be used as the hammer by any nation or organization that wanted to do harm to Iran. And if they also had no love for Israel, you can see the strategy here - attack Israel and destroy Iran, all without consequence. No - you can't designate a punching bag for any bad act.

But more important is to set aside the hyped 'boogey man' view of nuclear weapons and think about their actual deployment. As was discovered during the cold war, no advantage accrues from their offensive use. Indeed, nuclear states struggle to find ways to AVOID their possible use because the offensive nation cannot survive a nuclear exchange.

What ARE nuclear weapons for? Deterrence. Why would Iran want to build one? Regional deterrence against the Israeli nuclear threat and the potential Saudi nuclear threat. Strategic deterrence against the Israeli and American conventional threat.

Just as the Pakistani nuke threat is over-hyped (no way to get control of a warhead in secret, no way to enable it, no way to tamper with it, no way to transport it, no way to deliver it), the Iranian nuclear "threat" is a fairy tale. Even if they build a first-generation warhead, they have the north korea problem - there is nothing they can do with it but hope to deter conventional attacks...

[sean]

Really, man? Next to that let's bomb Pakistan piece, this blog is starting to look like it's looking to be hosted at Commentary.

Come on.

[Attackerman]

Yes, only a neocon might want to craft a deterrent strategy for a nuclear Iran. You've cracked it. Commentary is a big fan of my FBI Islamophobia series, after all.

[Arnold]

There are a couple of problems with your scenario.

First of all, terrorists don't need access to a state nuclear program to pull of a radiological attack. (In fact, they don't need it for a nuclear one either....) They can find the radioactive materials required at a large hospital or certain industrial sites. So in your scenario a white supremacist from Maine could cause the U.S. to attack Iran?

Second, there is a lot of fissile material in Russia and other former Soviet states that has never been properly accounted for at the same time Pakistan is increasing the size of its arsenal and therefore its stockpile of fissile material. So in an effort to clarify its deterrent strategy for a nuclear Iran, the U.S. will have to resort to Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0 without the accompanying clarity of ownership?

Besides, Robert Gallucci got there a few years ago: http://ann.sagepub.com/content/607/1/51.short

[sean]

Man, I like this blog, but, really? That's your deterrent strategy? Really? If so, you should hang out with Tancredo.

Not only did the US give up the doctrine of massive retaliation in the early 1960s, but even back then, it was never formulated in such a meat-headed, knee-jerk way. Nuclear deterrence theory is, you know, a whole object of inquiry with an enormous literature, and this kind of red-meat stuff is a bit of a caricature.

This is the kind of thoughtless machismo that I'd expect to hear on right-wing AM radio. Frankly, I expect something more thoughtful on here.

The islamophobia stuff is solid reporting, and I'm glad you're doing it, but this and your recent let's-bomb-the-fuck-out-of-Pakistan post really take away from more serious fare.

[weasel]

Sanger's complaints about deterrence are silly in the extreme.

Lets game this out:

1) Hezbollah detonates a nuclear bomb (your choice of targets). Intelligence links the bomb to Iran. Result: US immediately attacks Iran.

2)Hezbollah detonates a nuclear bomb (your choice of targets). Intelligence cannot establish clear links to its origin. Result: US immediately attacks Iran.

3) Hezbollah detonates a nuclear bomb (your choice of targets). Intelligence clearly links the bomb to Russia (or China or Korea or Israel or anyone). Result: US immediately attacks Iran.

The deterrence works of course because Iran gets blamed for everything in the Middle East, from rockets to bombs to hang-nails. The idea that they wouldn't get blamed for a nuclear bomb (and that they aren't perfectly aware of this) is absurd on its face. You proposed policy is already the reality and is understood by all, despite not having ever been formally stated.

[fuster]

weasel---the sheer insanity of blaming Iran for a nuclear weapon detonated by the Iranian client Lebanese Hezbollah is mind-boggling.

(and BTW....almost all of their 60,000 + rockets were assembled from old refrigerator and stove parts or were bought at local yard sales.)

[weasel]

Fuster - thanks for making my point. Iran would get blamed automatically. Hence, there is no chance that deterrence would fail because Iran would believe it could sneakily slip a nuke to another group.

[fuster]

yup weasel, if the Knights of Columbus detonates an Iranian-supplied nuclear weapon, we'll be gobsmacked and Iran will have escaped before we make the connection.

[ed_finnerty]

completely insane idea spencer

I have been reading you for years and I have no idea where this idiotic idea came from

have you seen any Pod's in your basement recently

[Enliseemn]

Скарлетт Йохансон - "Мне нравится меняться" Скарлетт Йоханссон – истинное воплощение чувственной женской красоты и природной сексуальности, сводящая с ума миллионы мужчин во всем мире. Ее шарм, утонченность и соблазнительность не могли остаться незаметными и в мире моды и красоты, поэтому многие известные дома мод выбирали Скарлетт в качестве лица для своих продуктов. Представляем вашему вниманию небольшую выдержку из ее последнего интервью.
Диеты, как похудеть Специально для вас наш раздел Диеты, как похудеть анализирует более сотни диет и методик снижения веса, как похудеть легко, быстро и правильно, с диетами или без диет.
Модные прически 2011-2012 для длинных, средних и коротких волос, описания и фото Модные прически 2011-2012 поражают нас своим разнообразием от старого добро ретро до креативных новинок. Давайте с помощью профессиональных визажистов выясним, какие модные прически для длинных, средних и коротких волос нам советуют визажисты в сезонах весна-лето и осень-зима 2011-2012 .

[rzfreeslotsrg]

77freeslots.com http://www.77freeslots.com - slots 77freeslots