Iran’s Nuclear Foot Foul


                          “OVER THE LINE!”         Screencap: Creative Loafing Atlanta

When Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu trotted out his cheesy bomb diagram in front of the General Assembly a week ago, the natural and popular comparison was to Wile E. Coyote and his mystifying brand allegiance to Acme.  Another apt comparison, I think, is to Walter Sobchak from the Coen Brothers’ 1998 cult classic, The Big Lebowski.  After all, we know Walter (NSFW language) is a big fan of Theodor Herzl and drawing lines in the sand, and he’s definitely not afraid of calling out and aggressively policing a foot foul when he sees one.  Bibi is also concerned with bright lines and swift enforcement, but it seems that bowling has firmer rules and clearer boundaries than international relations.

Despite the intractable suspicion and existential angst that an Iranian nuclear weapon threat provokes, it doesn’t really matter what Bibi or the rest of the world thinks about Iran’s ostensibly peaceful uranium enrichment.  Its nuclear program—including the secretive research into nuclear fuel reprocessing which provoked sanctions—are within Tehran’s rights as a member of the NPT.   Still, many can envision a fateful day in the not too distant future when Iran joins the nuclear club or transfers a weapon to a non-state actor.  Netanyahu’s deep-seated fears of these scenarios are quite reasonable.  Both he and Obama have repeatedly asserted that such an event is unacceptable, and that all options are on the table to prevent it.

“The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb,” Netanyahu said at the UN. “It is at what stage can we stop Iran from getting the bomb.”  When Bibi grabbed his big magic marker and drew a red line across the top of his AED (Acme Explosive Device), he claimed that Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon would be irreversible by Spring or Summer of next year.  Netanyahu has been pressuring the US to adopt an accelerated timetable on Iran’s nuclear program for a while, but Obama needs to refuse Bibi’s bait.  The timetable is solely based on when Iran will have enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for one or two nuclear weapons. While this is the foremost technical hurdle to acquiring the bomb, designing a deliverable device is at least two years away for Iranian engineers.  Bibi’s timetable would sacrifice this time, but a second Obama Administration ought to use these vital years to negotiate a resolution short of armed intervention.

It’s worth noting that Israel, Iran, and the US do not want a war.  There’s just not much upside to it.  Also, a targeted bombing raid might slow Iran’s program, but it would risk escalation, incite intense international criticism (particularly among Arab nations), and would not provide an enduring solution.  As UN inspectors discovered after the first Gulf War, the 1981 raid on the Iraqi Osirak reactor only served to redouble Baghdad’s efforts to procure the bomb.  Obama has repeatedly committed the US to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon by force when all other options fail.  I’d prefer the US take its time en route to another war in the region. Obama mustn’t dither, but he needs to lead and not let Netanyahu set the pace or the agenda.

It’s a shame that Bibi’s bomb was so hilariously lo-fi.  Not only did it divert from a substantive discussion of Iranian nuclear latency, it also shifted the focus away from the most important part of the diagram—the red line.

                            Mark it zero.               Photo: UN


4 thoughts on “Iran’s Nuclear Foot Foul

  1. Gotta disagree with one of your assertions here, Sam – I think elements within Israel – and Netanyahu is one of them – want war with Iran quite badly. The caveat is they want the U.S. to fight it. There’s no upside to us doing so and a pretty infinite downside.

    FWIW, I’m positive that Iran gets the Bomb within 20 years. Then they get to play by the same rules all the other nuclear powers play by – use them and die. Not too worried about that scenario.

  2. Thanks for the link and the important reminder, Heather. I’ve been meaning to get around to Sanger’s book for a little while. While it’s not as escalatory as an air strike, the “state of low-grade, daily conflict” that the US and Israel are fostering in Iran (cyber warfare and targeted violence against nuclear technicians) probably won’t open many profitable channels for negotiation.

  3. Hey Bill, from what I’ve read, practically all of the Israeli Cabinet is against war with Iran. A few outliers exist, and indeed, Bibi seems to be one of them. But the recent spat between him and Ehud Barak shows that the Israeli political leadership is nowhere near unified on the issue of military action against Iran.

    Also, I like your reality check on the Iranian threat. I didn’t mean to reinforce the standard, panicky view that Iran would quickly deploy a nuclear device in an eliminationist, anti-semitic way. I don’t see Iran as trying to usher in the Twelfth Imam through national suicide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s