If we’ve learned anything from the Iraq situation, it’s that it would have been a lot better to have dealt with the problem of Saddam Hussein and his desire to have weapons of mass destruction through diplomacy than use of military force. The diplomatic effort failed, for myriad reasons, including the Bush administration’s determination to test the doctrine of preventive war.
But the United States, not to mention the rest of the world, is heading into another crisis over a radical, Third World nation developing nuclear weapons — this time Iran. It would be in everyone’s interest, including Iran’s, if the situation could be resolved before it becomes another deep crisis.
This much is clear to me after having talked to a number of experts on Iran and the Mideast: if the Iranians continue down this road and do develop nuclear weapons, there is a high probability the United States, with or without the support of allies, will wind up using military force against it. The consequences of Iran’s having nuclear weapons are too threatening to the region. But the consequences of using force — even limited force to take out specific sites — are dangerously unpredictable.
Iran’s nuclear program must be kept in perspective. Most experts believe Iran is years away from a nuclear weapon. At the moment it’s believed Iran has a very limited number of centrifuges, the technology necessary for converting fuel to weapons grade. What it is working on now is a laboratory program. It would take 50,000 centrifuges to have a real bomb program. That could take five to 10 years to develop.
Experts on Iran also emphasize that this whole issue is a matter of national pride that transcends political parties, ethnic and religious differences. What is not clear, however, is whether Iran simply wants recognition that it has the right to convert fuel for electricity or whether it is hell-bent on having the bomb. I certainly suspect the latter.
Even more dangerous is the possibility of Iran’s misreading of Washington. The Iranian leadership might believe the US is so bogged down and discouraged about the situation in Iraq that it will never have the gumption to react to an Iranian nuke. The Iranians also might believe that they have so much leverage over Iraq that Washington will never take them on. This would be a very dangerous gamble on their part.
The key is not to allow this situation to become the game of chicken the Bush administration played with Saddam. Every effort has to be made to resolve it at an earlier stage, through diplomacy. That starts with a united front among Western allies and cooperation with Russia and China — easier said than done.
The most effective way to put pressure on Iran would be to stop buying its oil. One problem: A boycott would mean oil priced at $100 a barrel. We’d be hurting ourselves as much as Iran.
A more limited embargo would also have an effect on the Iranian economy, which is heavily dependent on world trade. And Iran doesn’t want to be viewed as a renegade nation. France and Germany, in particular, have lucrative trading relationships with Iran. The embargo against Iraq proved far more effective than many believed, but it was also suffering huge leaks by 2001. Can the West do better now? That’s problematic.
Part of the effort must be much better communication with Iran. It’s a positive development that our secretary of state has authorized the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, to talk with Iranian officials. The immediate purpose is to improve the situation in Iraq. But there is every reason to include the nuclear issue in the dialogue.
Iran’s desire to have a nuclear weapon could be the next major crisis for the United States. Better to try to head it off first.
