U.S. lawmakers, think tanks and independent experts of various political backgrounds are weighing the need for military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites as well as new diplomatic alternatives aimed halting disputed elements of the country’s atomic program, according to a New York Times commentary today (see GSN, Oct. 31).
The United States suspects that Iran’s atomic efforts are geared toward weapons development, but Tehran insists that its nuclear work is strictly aimed at civilian energy development.
The incoming presidential administration “might have little time and fewer options to deal with this threat,” warns a report by the Bipartisan Policy Center.
The analysis examines measures such as a blockade that would prevent Iran from receiving gasoline, but adds that “a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort.”
Use of military force “is an element of any true option,” although it should only be employed within a wider strategy, Ashton Carter, a high-level Defense Department official under former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a report for the bipartisan Center for a New American Security.
At a September meeting organized by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, unofficial representatives for Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) agreed that U.S. strategy should emphasize halting Iranian efforts to acquire nuclear weaponry rather than assuming Iran will become a nuclear power.
“John McCain won’t wait until after the fact,” said Max Boot, a columnist speaking for the Republican presidential contender.
Richard Danzig, speaking for Democratic candidate Obama, called a strike on Iran a “terrible” option, but added that “it may be that in some terrible world we will have to come to grips with such a terrible choice.”
Dennis Ross, Obama’s senior Middle East adviser, said the military option was emphasized before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Since that time, diplomacy’s failure to slow Iran’s nuclear progress has forced policy-makers to assume a more balanced perspective, he said.
“I want to concentrate the mind and make people understand, ‘Look, this is serious and you don’t want to be left with only those two choices,’” military action or deterring a nuclear-armed Iran, said Ross, who worked as a Middle East negotiator under the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations (Carol Giacomo, New York Times, Nov. 3).
In Israel, officials and experts are debating the option of an independent strike on Iran, the Los Angeles Times reported (see GSN, Oct. 27).
Some Israeli officials believe that other nations would prefer the country to strike if it could effectively destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. There are great risks in such action, including Tehran’s repeated warning that it would respond forcefully.
“They will be very happy if we do their dirty work for them," said Efraim Inbar, head of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies in Israel. "The world is moving into 'What can we do about it?' mode. There is a strong instinct here to do it on our own."
Emily Landau of the Israel-based Institute for National Security Studies added: “I don't know which direction this is going to go in Israel."
"Pressure is rising" within Israel for military action, but it might "move in the direction of more and more people in Israel concluding that a nuclear Iran is not something we can stop," Landau said.
"Time is running very, very short right now," said Ephraim Asculai, a former high-level Israeli nuclear official now at the Institute for National Security Studies (Khalil/Richter, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 2).