One aspect that seems to be missing in this discussion is that a pre-emptive strike on Iran would have economic consequences. Suppose Iran bombs Saudi Arabian oil fields or supports a large scale sabatoge program on oil facilities throughout the Gulf of Persia? Watching the escalation of oil prices in the past two years along with the increased volatility (due to the limits imposed by OPEC) indicates to me that whatever we do to Iran is going to have a much greater impact on economy then the Iraq war ever will (200 Billion Dollars spent in Iraq so far sounds like a huge amount of money, but we’re an 11 Trillion Dollar a year economy–double the price of oil say $90 to $100 a barrel-- and you can watch the ripples ensnare our economy along with everyone else’s).
Calmer minds need to prevail. The IAEA has a numerous inspectors all over Iran watching over their nuclear operations which makes it more difficult to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. So for now I’m not too worried. If they kick out the inspectors and dump the NPT, expect some nasty business ahead.
I’m quite aware of Iran being the biggest thug in regard to terrorism (the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia are two areas that affected the US directly; along with the support of Hezbollah) and the Islamic Republic of Iran is really neither (a leadership replete corrupt imans who manipulate national elections [please, no Republican/Democrat jokes]).
Giving the propensity for Iran to engage in terrorism and the fact it hasn’t really suffered any major military retribution from the West for it’s past actions (at least that I’m aware of), I believe it will create a temptation to become more and more aggressive as time goes by. But there is hope in the long term: Iran has a big problem in the form of their own self made “Baby Boom” The reason: 1/2 the population is under the age of 21 and there are not enough jobs now or in the future to make up for this.
The leaders are good at manipulating the public in the short term by always talking about outside threats, which ensures their “just” hold on to power. The idea of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon is quite popular now with the Iranian public and hence outside pressures on the government to defer from building the bomb only aggravates the “pressure” on the leaders so that they will stand up to the West
But the glamour of this will soon fade after the costs start adding up. Nukes require a lot more babying then convention weapons; there’s a cost associated with the preparation, manufacture, storage, transportation, adaptation to weapon systems, and security from (umm…how should I say this?) the threat of terrorism. Iranians are not monolithic in outlook more than a few will start questioning if it really makes them safer. After all, if other nations decide that it’s in their best interest to acquire nuclear weapons that surround Iran, it will force the government to divert already scarce resources to deal with the economic consequences of making babies in the 80’s and 90’s to ensure that they have the biggest stick in the region. At some point, guns vs. butter are going to be settled one way or another, perhaps through another popular uprising.
It’s a pity that the Iranian populance believes that a nuclear weapon(s) are going to buy them additional security; certainly it’ll give them a status of sorts. I suppose the argument for self-defense and detterance would be legit. But my feeling is that they are engaged in establishing themselves as the regional power in the region with all the perks that go with it. In other words, it will be used to blackmail other countries through intimidation (which is not to say the US didn’t wave the stick at non-nuclear states) And it will accelerate the breakdown of the NPT, as other nations will wish to create their own nuclear deterrence. The Cuban Missile crisis (along with the even scarier revelations that were made 25 to 30 years later) demonstrated that waving the nuclear stick with a lot of built in safeguards on both sides still generated a set of frightful, unintended consequences that could have spun into a nuclear exchange.
Will the leadership become too wooden-headed to deal with economic crisis and start beating the war drums? Have they examine the past nuclear saber rattling and confrontations and figure out that a nuclear bluff is about all you can do with them? I don’t know, but this thought keeps reoccurring to me in a way that no other current or potential nuclear club member has: will they be the first to taste nuclear fire since Nagasaki? A horrible thought, but this was a nation that sent children to the Iraqi front in the 80’s to fight and die as martyrs (in some cases involving suicide bombing of tanks). If your political and survival instincts drive you to engage in this kind of action, what are you really capable of? Iran finally sued for peace (at a cost of a million lives and what, $250 Billion, with likewise cost to the Iraqies), so it does indicate that there is a pragmatic streak to their machinations. But ultimately the question is the Iranian leadership driven by cold Machiavellian calculation, or is it mostly passion? If it is the latter, then it’s only a matter of time before they get fissiled.
Who would be the people to whom we would “accommodate” in this instance?