Iran's Nuclear Ambitions and U.S. Policy Options

Introduction

Iran is a Persian Gulf oil-rich country that insists it needs nuclear power for civilian purposes. Strong pressure from the United States in the form of economic sanctions and political isolation has not deterred Iran from its nuclear ambitions, and demands by the world community of nuclear regulators for inspections to ensure against military use of nuclear technology have been unproductive.

Given the geopolitical relationships in the region — and the unnecessary redundancy of nuclear power alongside Iran's vast oil resources — it is highly unlikely that Iran's only intention is to develop nuclear power facilities for civilian use. Iran has already installed thousands of high-speed centrifuges in cascades used to enrich uranium, and without international oversight it is impossible to verify that the enrichment process is being used to produce low-grade uranium rather than weapons-usable grades capable of incorporation into nuclear weapons (Cirincione, 2007).

Israel and India, rather than the United States, are the likely targets of any Iranian militaristic intentions. Iranian President Ahmadinejad made clear that he hoped to see Israel eliminated. Analysts suggest, however, that the Iranian president does not actually possess authority over the Iranian military and that the regime itself is unlikely to pursue the radical course of action he advocated so vocally.

Nevertheless, Israel has indicated its commitment to preventing Iran from ever developing an operational nuclear weapons capability, and many within the U.S. administration view a nuclear Iran as a global threat serious enough to warrant a U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities if international pressures and sanctions against unsupervised nuclear technology ultimately prove unsuccessful.

The Military Threat of a Nuclear Iran

In all likelihood, the United States does not face a direct threat from a nuclear-armed Iran. Given the realities of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) that prevailed for most of the second half of the twentieth century between East and West, it is arguable that even Israel would not be attacked directly by Iran, because any such attack would ensure Iran's own destruction in response.

On the other hand, in light of the nature of radical Islamist ideology, the global jihad inspired by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and Israel's ongoing experience with suicidal attacks, it is perfectly understandable that Israel may not be comfortable relying on MAD to protect herself from nuclear annihilation by extremists who consider themselves martyrs.

Unlike Israel, the U.S. is far enough from Iran that even in the worst-case scenario of a regime change to one far more radical than the clerical establishment currently led by Ayatollah Khamenei, the United States would remain safe from a direct military nuclear attack, simply by virtue of Iran's inability to produce intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) technology capable of such distant reach (Cirincione, 2007).

Non-Military Threats of a Nuclear Iran

By far the greater risk to the U.S. comes from potential Iranian ties to Al Qaeda and from unofficial support for the global jihad against the United States on the part of elements within the Iranian administration sympathetic to terrorist ambitions. In the case of a terrorist attack, the United States is not protected by the threat of forensic identification of the source of a WMD strike on the American homeland in the way it is protected against a state-sponsored nuclear attack (Cirincione, 2007).

According to the most credible analysts in the field, the real threat to the United States posed by a nuclear Iran comes from the prospect of weapons-grade fissile uranium — or eventually plutonium — produced in Iranian facilities being transferred to the hands of terrorist organizations. Once that occurs, the likelihood of a nuclear detonation on U.S. soil becomes a virtual certainty. Renowned expert Graham Allison (2004) considers this a matter of when, not if.

Ironically, given the complexities of the primary military threats of the Cold War era, the United States now faces a far greater risk of a devastating nuclear attack detonated in a moving truck crossing a Manhattan bridge than one employing high-tech missile guidance systems launched by another global power (Allison, 2004).

Conclusion

Without a doubt, the U.S. military is already stretched beyond its long-term operational limit. Any attack on Iran would severely damage U.S. foreign relations and the U.S. economy, and would cause a tremendous amount of collateral damage — that is, civilian casualties. Ultimately, however, the consequences of doing nothing may be even worse, because any nuclear material diverted from Iranian programs that reaches terrorist hands and is destined for use on American soil would represent a catastrophe of historic proportions. The calculus, however painful, favors action over inaction.

References

Allison, G. (2004). Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe. New York: Henry Holt.

Cirincione, J. (2007). Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons. New York: Columbia University Press.

Larsen, R. J. (2007). Our Own Worst Enemy: Asking the Right Questions About Security to Protect You, Your Family, and America. New York: Grand Central Publishing.

Reidel, B. (2007). Al Qaeda strikes back. Foreign Affairs, 86(3).