How to Manage a Nuclear Iran - Preparing for the Worst Case Scenario

It isn't just their support for Assad. Propelled by an ordained mission; from Baghdad to Beirut and from Buenos Aires to Washington DC, Khamenei and his agents leave no question as to their resolve.

Their commitment is paying off - Iran’s admittance to the nuclear arms club looks likelier with each passing day. To guard against diplomatic and/or military failure, we need to prepare to manage an Iran that's armed with nuclear weapons.

The danger is real. Having called President Obama on his ‘red line’ bluff, Assad has eviscerated American deterrent value. In Obama's eager détente with Rouhani, Iranian perceptions of American malleability have grown. As Dexter Filkins explains, Iran pays great attention to American resolve (or the absence thereof). As I’ve argued before; whether in terms of a regional arms race, a further sectarian dissection of Middle Eastern politics, or reactive strategies by Israel, an Iran possessing nuclear weapons would cause a geopolitical earthquake. In my opinion, faced with that world, the United States would need to enact a four-part strategic response.

    1) Obama would have to codify a new security doctrine.

Many commentators argue that the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran is greatly exaggerated. As they see it, the fear of mutually assured destruction would deter Iranian nuclear aggression. I disagree. Their supposition happily ignores Iran’s enshrined ideal of martyrdom (the ‘submission of the self’). Time and time again, Iran's leaders have risked catastrophic consequences in the pursuit of their political agenda. This is a regime that sent children to clear minefields during the Iran-Iraq war. This is a regime that continues to call for the annihilation of America and Israel. As a corollary, deterring a nuclear armed Iran would require more than SSBNs - it would demand Iran’s recognition of an alternate cost-benefit analysis. In short, Iran would have to believe that a direct or indirect (via terrorist proxy) nuclear attack against the United States or its allies would result in one-sided retaliatory apocalypse. Articulating this new framework would be a horrific clarification. It would also be absolutely necessary for global security.

               

    2) The US Government would have to counter-balance an emboldened Iranian security strategy.

Iran’s nuclear accession would catalyze the Revolutionary Guards/Iranian Intelligence. In this scenario, the US could not stand silent. US security interests would require increased disruption operations against covert Iranian activities around the world. Here, the overarching US intention would be a simple one – ensuring that Iranian hardliners understood their choices were bound inexorably to consequences beyond their control.

    3) The US would have to pursue a regional defense agreement.

Highly evident tensions between the US and Saudi Arabia emphasize the importance of this point. At a deeper level, were the US to fail in reconciling its security relationships to a nuclear Iran, the consequences would be disastrous. As encapsulated in the Syrian Civil War, in America’s absence, states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia revert to terrorist proxies as mechanisms of self-defense - without American reassurance, a nuclear Iran would likely be joined by a flourishing spring of Sunni Jihadism. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is already flirting with its own procurement of nuclear weapons.

    4) US nuclear weapons would have to be upgraded.

Facing a nuclear Iran, the assurance of continued US nuclear supremacy would be a non-negotiable.

It’s true; a replacement for America’s aging nuclear deterrent must recognize growing fiscal pressures. That being said, the acceptance of substantial costs would become unavoidable. Like all totalitarians, the Ayatollahs understand power in brutally simplistic terms – through the barrel of a gun. Bound to a credible deterrent doctrine as outlined in point (1), the United States would have to halt the creeping doubt surrounding its nuclear credibility.

              This 'management' plan would be complex, expensive and risky. Regardless, a nuclear Iran would systemically alter the geopolitics of the Middle East (and thus the world). America could not remain inert.

Related writings

Iran plans retaliation if US strikes Assad

Reports suggest that Iran is planning to retaliate against US interests if President Obama orders air strikes against Assad. No one should be surprised. Just yesterday, I argued that perceptions of American weakness in regards to Syria would encourage Iranian hostility. The causal influence is clear - by failing to challenge Iran's aggression, America has signaled a vulnerability to that aggression. So begins a perpetuating cycle. Unfortunately, due to the fact that many Republicans in Congress do not understand the power politics of the Middle East and many Democrats are fundamentally resistant to the notion of US resolution in face of blackmail, Iran has been undeterred in their long term aggression against the United States. Indeed, in 2011, acting under orders from the ''very highest levels'' of the Iranian government, terrorists nearly blew up a popular Washington DC restaurant. The US Government's pathetic response? Condemnation.

President Obama needs to make it clear that should Iran take action against US interests, he will respond with deliberate and decisive military force. Ultimately, this isn't about bluster or warmongering, this about realpolitik - making theocratic thugs understand that their malfeasance will not go unanswered. As the excellent Dexter Filkins has also noted, Iran's strategy in Iraq was significantly influenced by US deterrent posture.

For more of my thoughts on Iran...

Bulgaria bus explosion

The attack on Israelis visiting Bulgaria is probably the work of Hizballah or Iran's intelligence services. UPDATED-Hezbollah confirmed. Or both. The Iranians have been especially active in attempting to strike Israeli targets over the past few months. These actions have included incidents in Bangkok, Georgia and India. Israel's priority at the moment is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability. As I argued several months ago, for each Western/Israeli action in the region, Iran prepares a counter-response. Israel will now encourage the international community to increase pressure on Iran.

Also - Although not engaged in an actual attack - Israel claims that Hizballah operatives were detained in Kenya and Cyprus over the past few days.

Iranian Plot

The two men also discussed killing the ambassador in a restaurant which the diplomat frequented.

In the aftermath of this plot (technically an act of war), a much more robust American policy towards Iran is required. Medium-Large scale military action should rightly be ruled out, but tougher sanctions are simply not sufficient. This is not to say America should once again embrace the illogic of the neo-conservatives, but the lack of credible American response to Iran's support for death squads in Iraq and attacks on coalition forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan have allowed the Iranian Revolutionary Guards to come to perceive the US as both weak and impotent. This must change. Correspondingly, the US should exert more pressure in attempting to change the revolutionary guards behaviour. This could include tougher sanctions, financial seizure of foreign held Iranian government bank accounts and the consideration of targeted covert operations against revolutionary guard leadership linked to the plot, or even a petroleum blockade of Iran. The criminal affidavit apparently states

When the informant expressed concern that 100 to 150 people could be injured in a bombing of the restaurant, including “senators who dine there,” Arbabsiar said “no big deal.'

A materially activated plot against the US by Iranian agents is an act of war. War is not an option nor a preference but a serious American response is certainly required.