| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |||
| We canÂ’t attack Iran by Alan Dershowitz | |||
| 2006-04-24 | |||
Nothing will deter Iran. Sanctions are paper protests to an oil-rich nation. Diplomacy has already failed because Russia and China are playing both sides. Sabotage, bribery — even assassination of nuclear scientists — may delay but will not prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. That leaves military threats and, ultimately, military action. First, consider military threats. They are already coming from two sources: the US and Israel. Neither is working, for very different reasons. The Iranians would probably give up their nuclear weapons programme if their leaders truly believed that refusal to do so would produce an Iraq-like attack — an all-out invasion, regime change and occupation. Leaders, even religious leaders, fear imprisonment and death. Only the United States is capable of mounting such a sustained attack. But the continuing war in Iraq has made it impossible for the US to mount a credible threat, because American public opinion would not accept a second war — or so the Iranians believe. Moreover, America’s allies in the war against Iraq — most particularly Great Britain — would not support an attack on Iran. That is precisely why the Bush administration is barking so loudly. It wants to convince the Iranian leadership that it is preparing to bite — to attack, invade and destroy their regime, perhaps even with the use of tactical nuclear weapons. But it’s not working. It is only causing the Iranian leaders themselves to bark louder; to exaggerate their progress towards completing a nuclear weapon and to threaten terrorist retaliation by its suicide volunteers if Iran were to be attacked. The war in Iraq is a two-edged sword when it comes to Iran. One edge demonstrates that the US is willing and able to topple dictatorial regimes which it regards as dangerous. That is the edge the Bush administration is trying to showcase. The other edge represents the failure of Iraq — widespread public distrust of intelligence claims, fear of becoming bogged down in another endless war, strident opposition at home and abroad. That is the edge being seen by the Iranian leaders. The US threat is seen as hollow.
These threats of a nuclear attack are being taken seriously by Israeli leaders, even if they are neither imminent nor certain. Israelis remember apocalyptic threats from an earlier dictator that were not taken seriously. This time those threatened have the military capacity to confront the danger and are likely to do so if it becomes more likely. Even if Israelis believe there is only a 5 per cent chance that Iran would attack Israel with nuclear weapons, the risk of national annihilation would be too great for any nation — and most especially one built on the ashes of the Holocaust — to ignore. The Iranian leaders understand this. They take seriously the statements made by Israeli leaders that they will never accept a nuclear Iran under its present leadership. They fully expect an attack from Israel when they come close to producing a nuclear weapon. Why then are they not deterred by the realistic prospect of an Israeli pre-emptive (or preventive) strike? For three related reasons. First, an Israeli attack would be a limited, surgical strike (or series of strikes). It would not be accompanied by a full-scale invasion, occupation and regime change. Second, it would only delay production of a nuclear bomb, because it would be incomplete. Some nuclear facilities would be missed or only damaged, because they are ‘hardened’ and/or located in populated areas. The third and most important reason is that an attack by Israel would solidify the Iranian regime. It would make Iran into the victim of ‘Zionist aggression’ and unify Muslims, both inside and outside of Iran, against their common enemies. I say enemies because regardless of what role the US played or did not play in an Israeli attack, the US would share the blame in the radical Islamic world. I am not going so far as to argue that the Iranian leadership would welcome an Israeli attack, but it would quickly turn such an attack to its advantage. If matters get worse domestically for the Iranian regime — if the nascent anti-Ahmadinejad ‘democratic’ or ‘secular’ movements were to strengthen — Ahmadinejad might actually get to the point of welcoming, even provoking or faking, an attack from Israel. This is why the threat from Israel will not work as a deterrent. So we have two threats: one from a superpower — the US — that can but won’t bring about regime change. The other from a regional power — Israel — that may well attack but, if it does, will not only fail to produce regime change, but may actually strengthen the existing regime. The Iranians will persist therefore in their efforts to secure nuclear weapons. Unless they are stopped or significantly delayed by military actions, they will become a nuclear power within a few years — precisely how many is unknown and probably unknowable. Armed with nuclear weapons and ruled by religious fanatics, Iran will become the most dangerous nation in the world. There is a small but still real possibility that it could initiate a suicidal nuclear exchange with Israel. There is a far greater likelihood that it could hand over nuclear material to one of its terrorist surrogates or that some rogue elements could steal nuclear material. This would pose a direct threat to the United States and all its allies. The world should not accept these risks if there are reasonable steps available to prevent or reduce them. The question remains: are any such steps feasible? Probably not, as long as the US remains bogged down in Iraq. History may well conclude that America and Britain fought the wrong preventive war against a country that posed no real threat, and that fighting that wrong war stopped them fighting the right preventive war against a country that did pose a danger to world peace. Though the doctrine of preventive war is easily abused — as it was in Iraq — sometimes it is a necessary evil. The failure of Britain and France to wage a preventive war against Nazi Germany in the mid-1930s cost the world millions of lives. Will the same be said some day about the failure to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard University. His latest book, Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways, is published in the UK by WW Norton & Co. | |||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #15 If we take out the sites and the M²s, then everyone will jump up and down and hate the Big Bad US™. But many thousands or millions of people will be spared a horrible death or maiming by nukes. So what is the choice again? Paul, That may be a dilemma for the usual |
| Posted by: RD 2006-04-24 23:48 |
| #14 If we do nothing about the M²s of Iran and they get nukes, then many thousands or millions of people will be killed and/or injured or maimed by nuclear weapons going off in the hands of nutcases, as well as probable retaliations from the US, France, et al. If we take out the sites and the M²s, then everyone will jump up and down and hate the Big Bad US™. But many thousands or millions of people will be spared a horrible death or maiming by nukes. So what is the choice again? |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-04-24 23:44 |
| #13 Yo think those generals that were griping about Rummy were just spreading disinformation to deceive the MMs? Stranger things have happened. |
| Posted by: mac 2006-04-24 23:24 |
| #12 "The question remains: are any such steps feasible? Probably not, as long as the US remains bogged down in Iraq." I'm a little skeptical of this "bogged down in Iraq" mantra we keep hearing over and over. I don't have much in the way of facts to back up that skepticism, just a very, VERY strong gut feel that our troops are a probably a LOT more, shall we say, "available for use" than the media and the punditocracy are telling us. Common sense tells me that establishing a large land base for American forces in the heart of the Middle East, one with ready access to all three foci of evil in the area-- Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia-- was a major (though not much discussed) objective behind the drive to oust Saddam. And its a little hard for me to believe we're not yet in a position to use it. Does anyone have any hard, factual information on how many of our troops in Iraq are doing things that simply cannot be interrupted, not even for an operation to decapitate the Iranian government and destroy its nuclear toys? My hunch is, we've got ample manpower. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-04-24 17:48 |
| #11 "It would make Iran into the victim of ‘Zionist aggression’ and unify Muslims, both inside and outside of Iran," How many times have we heard this and it never comes to pass. The 'Arab Seething Masses' senario. They may whine but they can't do nuthin' about an Isreali attack. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2006-04-24 15:34 |
| #10 Rafael, Losing US Hegemony is only one of my concerns. What I was trying to say was more along the lines of the possible beginning of a war between civilizations. The immediate consequences may be loss of US influence but this may later be followed by deterioration of Western liberal democratic regimes all over the globe. In a way I believe the Iranian Nuclearization program is a symptom of the real disease (non-western fundamentalist world view). Regarding #3, I totally agree that this (if possible) would be a much better way of defanging (if it works) with a much cleaner outcome. The only problem is you cant be sure it will work (see Iraq, they should have understood by now). |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2006-04-24 14:54 |
| #9 EoZ, if losing American superiority in the world is your sole concern, then you've got other problem areas besides Iran. As to #3, it is yet to be gauged whether Iranian people, those non-fundamentalists, are rational or irrational. That's the biggest key in this whole thing, and it should be used to maximum advantage if it is favourable. |
| Posted by: rafael 2006-04-24 14:04 |
| #8 Dershowitz (and Mr. Steve White) are dead on, and if you hadn't noticed, Dershowitz was looking beyond US military capabilities. There's no debate that both Iraq and Iran can be taken on simultaneously. That's not where the problem lies, literally and figuratively. he can't, for example, tell us what we should have done instead of removing Saddam I think it was implied that he should have been left alone, although he is speaking with 20/20 hindsight. But still, knowing what you know now, would you have gone after Saddam? ...and that's what Dershowitz is saying. |
| Posted by: rafael 2006-04-24 13:55 |
| #7 What Dershowitz forgets to mention: 1) if Americans indeed neglect to defang Iran because of politico/military reasons described above, they are actually signing their last will and testament by initiating the beginning of the Syno-Iranian (and perhaps/-Russian)Block which will devastate the US Hegemony in less than 10 years. 2) America (Bush ?) have no choice - Its now or never ! In five years Iran will distribute a few portable nukes to a few terrorist orgs and then deny any connection to them. What will follow will probably decapitate the US as a World Power. 3) It has been proven that fundamentalists (even smart ones like the Iranians)do not act rationally. Therefore the West in general and US in particular cannot assume that things will proceed in a way which would be predictable from a strategic/military analysis perspective. 4) Irrespective of Dersh's basic assumptions, someone at the Pentagon will have to think up a way of timely stopping the Nuclearization of Iran. It may even be that inaction on the US side will push Israel into striking a first blow with the hope that in the ensuing chaos the US will have to intervene and complete the job. |
| Posted by: Elder of Zion 2006-04-24 13:44 |
| #6 Dersh deserves credit for waking up after 9/11. He's still detoxing from all those years in Ivy League-land, tho. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-04-24 12:41 |
| #5 "We canÂ’t attack Iran" - Alan Dershowitz Sure we can, Alan. Hang around a little longer and we'll show you how. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-04-24 12:39 |
| #4 Face it Alan, outside of the courtroom you're full of Kool Aid. Get out of NY, the Hamptons, the coccoon and get around more. You're in the Echo Chamber of Stupidity and BDS and you've been had. Intellectual gang-rape seems an appropriate term. Go have a long talk with Sharansky. Don't argue, just listen. Then sit down, thank your lucky stars that there are people who know a hell of a lot more than you do about matters, particularly military matters, and have the stones you lack to do the right thing. Then think again. Oh, while you're getting your education outside of the Ivory Tower of Babble, do STFU. See you in court after the steel rain. |
| Posted by: Glemble Spins6394 2006-04-24 11:43 |
| #3 Dershowitz is square on when Israel is at stake, on matters of law and politics; off-the-mark when Israel is not concerned; however, he does not know squat about military capabilities or operations in either case. In a way, you could say he sees the US military as being like the Israeli military, but a little bit larger. This is a common misconception in the Mideast. From the US military history perspective, things are very different. We almost never start a war, we get provoked by our enemies first, so that "we are in the right." Remember that Saddam, prior to Gulf War II, had been shooting at our aircraft in the northern no-fly zone for well over a year. So first, factor in (the US goading Iran into) attacking first. If we can present them with an irresistable target at just the right time, with them thinking it is a slam dunk, and they attack, the entire situation changes. It is a popular war, even if the attack fails miserably. It was against *US*, America. The second factor is that the only weapon of theirs we are concerned about is their missiles, if we know they don't have a nuke yet. So if we can take out their missiles in flight and on the ground, the rest of the fight can be from the air, slowly and methodically. Very much unlike Iraq, our military goals against Iran are in some ways almost the opposite. We want to eradicate their military and Revolutionary Guard. To slaughter them. And we want to partition Iran, until just Persia is left. And we want to reduce their nuclear facilities. We want to devastate Persia, having partitioned Iran to take away the resources they would need to rebuilt a nuclear arsenal. They would be stripped of oil and money. We may not even want to decapitate their government. Just leave them there to enjoy the fruits of their labors, until their own people put their heads on poles. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-04-24 11:41 |
| #2 Joe - I love you man but I can't always follow you. Having said that though, I'm glad your on our side! |
| Posted by: GORT 2006-04-24 11:11 |
| #1 Given the general inferiority of world Muslim armed forces against either America-West or Russia-CHina, I strongly doubt Iran's fanatical Mullahs andor MadMoud will give up its mil nucprogs even in the name of peace. The GWOT for the Left and Amer's enemies > the defeat and control of America, among other precepts or premises. The former have no hope of attaining nation/ideo-specific "manifest destiny" against the still-expanding American hyper-power [2005 Gross Global GDP = US$700+ Trillion minima]. This is why the Failed/Angry Left came up with its 2015-2020 timeline for America to unilater accept Leftism-Socialism and Socialist World Order. AMERICA CANNOT ACCEPT RADICAL IRAN HAVING THE BOMB UNLESS IT AND OUR ALLIES IN THE ME ARE ASO WILLING TO ACCEPT IRAN-CENTRIC EMPIRE AND HEGEMONY - NO DIFFERENT THAN FOR NORTH KOREA, WHOSE EMPIRE IN ASIA IS THE SAME AS SAYING CHINESE EMPIRE. FROM REGIONAL EMPIRE WILL COME GLOBAL EMPIRE, aka OWG/NWO. Global Muslim Theocratic State = same as saying GLOBAL GOD/FAITH-BASED SOCIALISM. Always remember that FASCISM in CLINTON-SPEAK > same as DE-REGULATED/COMPETITIVE COMMUNISM-LEFTSOCIALISM. Is also why for BURTHA-ISM, i.e. publicly obscenely criticizing the alleged Left-hated, despicable un-American Bush Fascist agenda but then voting for it later. On another note, also remember that MadMoud wants his personal ideo-Apocalypse, his 12th Imam whom will induce a follow-on world-wide Apocalypse for all faiths and nations. WE ALREADY KNOW FROM NUMEROUS BLOGGERS ON THE NET THAT THE UNDERLYNG PREMISE OF THE RUSSIA-CHINA-DOMIN SHANGHAI COOP IS THE PROMOTION OF COMMUNISM [as anything but Communism]. We must attack and democratize Iran, for the same reasons America must defend its democratic Allies in Asia from Chinese plans for Asia-wide and Pacific hegemony -OUR INACTION = MIL DEFEAT WILL BE INTERPRETED AS DE FACTO WEAKNESS, WITH FOLLOW-ON, INTENSIFIED DEMANDS BY AMERICA'S ENEMIES FOR CONCESSIONS AND TERRITORIES. INEVITABLY, AMERICA'S ENEMIES WILL DEMAND THAT AMERICANS MUST NO LONGER GOVERN OR CONTROL THEIR OWN COUNTRY. A nuclearized, weaponized Iran = Iranian empire = America's democratic sovereign ME allies, from Israel to Turkey to Egypt, etal. are just so much future deadmeat, like post-Nixon SOUTH VIETNAM(S). |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-04-24 02:13 |