Anthony Cordesman, a highly respected military and security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), writes in a co-authored CSIS report that while the US should be prepared for the worst — an Iranian sprint towards a nuclear weapon — successful negotiations still offer the longest-lasting [...]]]>
Anthony Cordesman, a highly respected military and security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), writes in a co-authored CSIS report that while the US should be prepared for the worst — an Iranian sprint towards a nuclear weapon — successful negotiations still offer the longest-lasting positive results. Importantly, Cordesman says negotiations can still be successful:
Sanctions and diplomacy are the best of a bad (or at least highly uncertain) set of options, but it is far from clear that they will stop Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapons capability. Despite the lack of diplomatic progress, and the appearance that the Iranians are stalling for time, negotiations can still be successful. Negotiations can bring about long-term change in the US Iranian relationship where military strikes or more sanctions cannot.
The military option, which requires the most resources and carries the most risk, should be the last option:
]]>Preventive attacks might end the chance of successful negotiations for the life of the Islamic
Republic, and usher in a period of containment analogous to the Cold War. Application of this
level of military force might also convince the Iranian regime that nuclear weapons are required
in order to prevent future attacks and will redouble their efforts to produce a weapon. A single
series of military strikes might also only delay Iran for several years, lead it use them as an
excuse to withdraw from the NNPT and IAEA inspection, and use even more resources to surge
towards the deployment of nuclear-armed forces. Such action should only be taken if it becomes
clear that Iran’s regime has reached such ideological extremes where it cannot be deterred or that
there is evidence Iran will produce and quickly use a nuclear weapon.
Anthony Cordesman, a highly respected military and security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), released his 4th working draft with Alexander Wilner on Iran’s military forces on June 25. The paper is part of a volume on US and Iranian competition in the Gulf (the second part focuses on the nuclear dimensions). The authors begin by stating that the prospects for a military clash between the US and Iran have grown increasingly likely:
In the wake of recent failed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, it seems increasingly unlikely that a political solution will be reached regarding Tehran’s increasing uranium enrichment. As a result, some form of military clash between the US and Iran, while by no means certain, is becoming increasingly likely. Such a clash can take many different forms, and each presents different levels of risk.
Ret. Col. Pat Lang, a former top Pentagon Middle East and South intelligence analyst, explains why he disagrees with the premise of the paper on his blog, Sic Temper Tyrannis:
]]>The essential competitiion in the Middle East is between Israel and Iran, not Iran and the US. If there is such a rivalry, it is largely created by a willingness on the part of the US to assume Israel’s strategic liabilities as its own.
Iran contributes to that willingness by making threatening noises and playing stupid diplomatc games but it is hard to conceal the fact that absent an Iranian attack on US assets or people or a serious threat to the US homeland the issue of hegemony in the Middle East, is a regional issue.
Unless the US is, in fact, the policeman of the world, why should we concern ourselves with Iranian “assymetric capabilities?”