Sometimes even crazy ideas acquire the semblance of respectability if they are repeated enough in otherwise respectable circles. That has long been the case with the idea of launching a war against Iran in the name of setting back the Iranian nuclear program. This notion gets chanted in a verse about “the only thing worse than a war with Iran is an Iranian nuclear weapon” with almost no careful attention in the chant to how the incentives facing Iranian leaders would affect their decisions, exactly how an Iranian nuclear weapon would affect Iranian behavior, what a military strike could reasonably be expected to accomplish, and the full consequences of a war with Iran. The craziness was in full display in an appearance by John Bolton before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday.
Bolton is no stranger to not letting reality get in the way of whatever bellicose campaign he is waging, including ones involving presumed unconventional weapons programs in states he doesn't like. When he was an undersecretary of state in the Bush administration, he agitated about a presumed biological weapons program in Cuba. When public statements he tried to make on the subject went beyond any available information, and intelligence officers he wanted to concur in those statements refused to do so, Bolton responded by browbeating the officers and demanding to their superiors that they be fired.
In his testimony to the House committee, Bolton dismissed the idea of any mutual deterrence relationship with Iran because, he said, deterrence is only for atheists. Containment and deterrence worked with the Soviet Union, he said, because the Politburo did not believe in an afterlife. But Iran, he says, has “a theocratic regime that values life in the hereafter more than life on earth.” Bolton did not provide any evidence for this being the utility function of Iranian leaders. Nor did he address the implications of his argument for deterrence of states associated with other religions that envision an afterlife. (Watch out not only for Christians but also for those Buddhists itching to get to nirvana.)
The irrepressible and undeterrable Mr. Bolton did not let what would seem to be inconvenient facts for his argument get in the way of the chant. There is, for example, the likelihood that we in the West do not know the full extent of the Iranian nuclear program. All the more reason to be alarmed, says Bolton. He never addressed what this meant for whether a military strike could find and destroy all of Iran's nuclear facilities.
Then there is the fact that any Iranian nuclear force would be tiny in comparison with Israel's nuclear arsenal (which Bolton never mentioned), not to mention that of the United States. Ah, says Bolton, that very smallness is all the more reason to be worried, because “that means its nuclear weapons will not really be military, but instead will be weapons of terrorism, a threat not to military targets but to our innocent civilians.” So we should be less concerned if a much larger Iranian nuclear force somehow could spring into existence?
Bolton's presentation concluded the way the chant usually concludes, which is that because “diplomacy has failed,” the only “realistic alternative” is to use military force preemptively. And also as usual, he said absolutely nothing about all the ways in which diplomacy has not yet been tried.
The one accurate and reassuring thing that Bolton said is that President Obama is unlikely to join in the insanity and start a war with Iran. So for the time being Bolton looks to Israel (“America's truest ally in the region”) to do the deed. He predicts that Iran's only response to being attacked would be to “unleash” Hamas and Hizballah on Israel. He offers no reason to believe that after having become the victim of aggression by America's “truest ally,” Iran would stop there.
It is scary to hear Bolton, and it is scarier still that such blather has a receptive audience. Unfortunately, too many other people share in the insanity about Iran—including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who said at the hearing, “I love John Bolton.”
Comments
Great article, why can't information like this be published more often?Iran simply wants to exist as its own country, and it wants to develop and enjoy economic success. Unfortunately, that constitutes becoming a part of the "axis of Evil" as George Bush famously said, even as Iran was offering invaluable assistance to our troops in Afghanistan while they were operating along with the Northern Alliance. Yet they want to develop nuclear technology IN ACCORDANCE with the requirements layed out by the Non-Proliferation Treaty, as well as the IAEI. Yet, Our country deems their success financially as some sort of threat, and granted we've been intevervening and disrupting their development as an independant nation for over 50 years, we obviously must step in when they want to improve the infrastructure of their domestic energy production. It's sad how disgusting the news that comes out of mainstream American media is when it comes to Iran. Bravo, excellent article!
How exactly is John Bolton considered credible? I seem to recall that way back in August 2007, Bolton confidently stated that we had only a 6 month window to bomb Iran, else all would be lost. Not quite 4 years later, we still need to bomb Iran or all is lost? Can't the mainstream media develop a "bozo list" of people to just ignore because they are never right on any topic?
I think the more valid concern would be the effect that Iran's nuclear weaponization might have on the security dilemma in the region, and more specifically, Iran's behavior in Gaza, South Lebanon, Syria, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia. With the latter concern, there's a danger that what would likely start with paramilitary brinkmanship may escalate into conventional war, which is a possibility that has become more acute in a context of elevated insecurity in the region, and reduced faith in alliance promises---especially the United States. This problem would be exponentiated if other countries in the region decided to change their nuclear posture, or if Israel decided to stress its capabilities with a preemptive strike that will probably fail to accomplish its objectives.Since Israel has a distinct advantage in the balance of force, and because its fear of exogenous threats has become understandably hysterical, the response of Israel---and not Iran---is most worrisome. This is because the balance of force provides it a window of opportunity that many are loath to see lost, and because its public might make demands that may be difficult for policymakers to resist---since many of them are sympathetic, and unintentionally exacerbate this state of fear. And based on the pain threshold that was exhibited in preceding crises, we know that it'll take very little to precipitate a violent response. Which means that nuclear weaponization could be the catalyst to a very ugly, and spiraling conflict.However, I don't think this outcome is inevitable, and less likely if the weaponization occurs in a period of relative calm. To ensure this result, the United States could in several ways instill confidence that might be sufficient to avert an escalation---in the form of aid, appeasement, and increased commitments to regional security. Additionally, Israel could elect to make its program public, which would make the costs of erring more clear, and might attenuate domestic and regional fears---especially since it could launch a strike against Rome if it was so inclined.