Nuclear Iran not inevitable

The notion that a nuclear Iran is inevitable has become a working assumption for leading scholars and decision-makers in the United States.

Their assumptions go something like this:

1. Iran is set to become nuclear and nothing at this stage can stop it;

2. If attacked, Iran’s retaliation will be unrelenting and will only slightly delay the acquisition of nuclear capabilities; and

3. An attack on Iran will increase the probability of Tehran actually using a nuclear bomb once it obtains it.

1. Iran is not nuclear. There are conflicting reports as to the actual progress it has made in developing the bomb and how long it will take to complete it, but the bottom line is that Tehran does not have a nuclear weapon today;

2. Nobody knows exactly what Iran will be able and willing to do if attacked. One possibility is that it will be deterred from reprisal and will act like Syria did after its secret plant was destroyed in 2007, or as Iraq did after its reactor was hit in 1981. Another possibility is that nuclear production will be delayed for enough time as to enable the grassroots opposition there to topple the tyrants in Tehran. Yet another possibility is that an efficient and affordable alternative for oil will be developed and by doing so remove barriers for true sanctions on a nuclear-pursuing Iran. There is also the possibility that Iran’s drive to acquire and use nuclear bombs will grow, but from the look of things today that motivation is very high, regardless.

3. If Iran becomes nuclear before Nov. 2012 it will be on Barack Obama’s watch. This is a classic example of what goes without saying goes better with saying. President Obama is history-driven. It is evident in every step he takes and every speech he makes. If Obama can be convinced that preventing a nuclear Iran is the issue of his time, he will probably act accordingly. If he is not persuaded he will continue spending his political collateral on healthcare.

1. Concede to Iran’s nuclear program and try to contain it, which is the nightmare scenario for anyone who slightly suspects Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might be a man of his word;

2. Sanctions, which are very hard to monitor or enforce in a modern economy with multinational corporations that compete for profit and when a hyper-growing China needs Iranian oil and with Russia being Russia; or

3. Launch military strikes, which in an ideal world would be carried out by a coalition of all the nations that are threatened by a nuclear Iran, for example: the Gulf Cooperation Council States (composed of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates), European Union members, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, the US and Israel.