While we’ve been distracted by a flurry of intelligence releases on Syria’s chemical weapons strikes many have overlooked another intelligence report pertaining to weapons of mass destruction with severe implications for America’s red lines and credibility in the Middle East.
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported, “Iran plans to test about 1,000 advanced uranium enrichment centrifuges it has completed installing.” As Iran’s enrichment capabilities increase, its breakout time — how long Iran would need to rapidly amass enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon — is dropping considerably. In the next year or two, Iran’s breakout time could drop to about 10 days: Too short of a window for the US to reliably respond before Iran could secure enough material for a bomb.
America’s next step in Syria is inextricably linked to the situation in Iran. The US biggest national security concern in the region is an Iranian regime with potential access to nuclear weapons. A nuclear Iran would destabilize the region, shock oil prices, and threaten US allies. Longer term, it’s harder to map out the implications, but they aren’t pretty. A nuclear Iran could trigger a domino effect among Middle Eastern countries; should another Arab Spring occur, a failed state with a nuclear weapons cache is a frightening prospect.
Not intervening in Syria — letting Bashar Assad cross Obama’s red line of using chemical weapons on civilians — makes any red lines regarding Iran’s nuclear progress blurrier. When Obama originally set his red line back in August 2012, he caught his advisers completely off guard. If Obama set the red line without consulting his own staff, he certainly didn’t ascertain whether other nations would also change their calculus in response to chemical weapons use. That helped lead to the embarrassment in Britain last week, when the House of Commons declined to join any potential American strike against Syria. This is possibly Obama’s hardest-earned lesson of the Syria debate thus far: even if you feel the need to tout American exceptionalism, don’t let it apply to your red lines. If you set a red line by yourself, be prepared to defend it alone as well.
Let that be a lesson on Iran. With the recent IAEA report suggesting that Iran is inching ever closer toward nuclear breakout capacity, potential upcoming negotiations with Iran carry an even greater urgency than usual. And there are compelling reasons to be optimistic: Both parties have something that the other wants, and Iran has a new president. In June, Hassan Rowhani won the presidential election with an outright majority. His election could usher in a reset in negotiations, and perhaps a modest deal, likely in the form of inspections and a slowdown in enrichment in return for reduced economic sanctions. The US needs to seize this chance. If negotiations fail, it could still prove difficult to maintain the current level of sanctions pressure for two reasons. First, because Iran now has a charismatic president instead of one who’s easy to hate and speaks out against Israel. Second, Rowhani is bent on promoting transparency and efficiency in the Iranian domestic economy. This makes it more tempting for countries like China, India and Russia to strike deals with Iran. So what’s next in Syria? It’s more likely than not that Congress will approve a limited military strike — and that the ensuing intervention will prove to be limited. If Congress rejects the president’s call for a military strike, it will set a dangerous precedent on American red lines and undermine the US’ credibility. If Obama’s proposal does pass and the US strikes, the administration must prepare for the risk that Iran will respond with escalatory asymmetric attacks, and it must ensure that any fallout from Syria does not scuttle upcoming nuclear negotiations.
• REUTERS
