Small Wars Journal

Why containing Iran won't be easy

Thu, 07/01/2010 - 11:01am
This week the American Enterprise Institute published an essay I wrote about containing and deterring Iran ("If war is not the answer"). The theme: An explicit U.S. security guarantee protecting Persian Gulf allies from Iran may look appealing (compared to the alternatives), but it will be difficult to define, tough to credibly implement, and contain its own sizable risks and costs.

An excerpt:

President Obama will soon have to face the realization that the sanctions strategy against Iran has fared no better than his bid to engage Iran's leaders in direct negotiations. Iran's strategy of patiently playing for time, generating diplomatic support from the developing world, and convincing China and Russia to dilute sanctions at the Security Council is working. The United States and its allies have not been able to develop sufficient leverage to disrupt Iran's strategy.

Short of war, the only course remaining for the United States and its allies is containment and deterrence. A key component of such a strategy would be a security guarantee, explicitly extending the U.S. nuclear umbrella over its Arab allies around the Persian Gulf. Compared to the prospect of war, and with the other strategies having failed, an explicit U.S. security guarantee may look appealing. In July 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton mentioned the possibility of extending a "security umbrella" over the Middle East and repeated the idea in February 2010.

But a security guarantee protecting the Persian Gulf allies from Iran will not be easy. It will be difficult to define, tough to credibly implement, and contain its own risks and costs. Before agreeing to a security guarantee, U.S. policy makers need to consider these costs and risks. They should prepare programs that will increase the chance of such a strategy's success. Perhaps most important, U.S. policy makers need to be open with the American public about what a commitment to a security guarantee will mean. As was the case during the Cold War, broad public acceptance is necessary if a security guarantee is to be credible and sustainable.

Click here to read the essay.

Comments

negotiator6

Mon, 07/05/2010 - 5:39pm

We all recognize Iran is a growing threat to stability in the Middle East.

Significant influence in terms of financial support specifically with arms dealing with Hezbollah in Lebanon and with Hamas in Gaza is a direct threat to Israel's nation security.

Perhaps some of your read "The Enemy We know", by Bob Baer who provides detailed examples of how Iran has expanded post Saddam Hussein era.

Up and until the invasion, Iraq was a counterbalance to Iran resulting in the Iranian forces posting nearly a million men along the Iraqi border.

Then came the Bush era assertion of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction...and now some seven years later, US forces are set to withdraw from combat operations in Iraq.

Iran is stronger than ever influencing Iraqi politics as well as growing involvement in border areas of Afghanistan. Remember, it was Iran who manufactured the EFP's killing hundreds of Americans and wounding perhaps thousands...in Iraq..and perhaps now in Afghanistan.

With 60% of Iraq Shia, while the other religious groups are 20% Sunni and 20% Kurd (now called Kurdistan), the religious dominance is obvious.

Many of the current leaders in the Iraqi government spent many years in Iran cultivating relationships in the hopes that someday the Shia of Iraq and Iran will consolidate....and they have in effect accomplished that long and enduring goal.

The singular challenge for the Iranians is the movement of petroleum products through the Straits of Hormuz. The Iranians know our presence in the Gulf is intended to possibly restrict the movement of Iranian oil and a strategic counterbalance to Iranian movements.

Now comes what will someday be the utilization of the Iraqi oil pipeline infrastructure to accommodate Iran oil which would be piped through Syria and markets in Europe, thereby reducing the time and cost of distribution.

Syria..the birthplace of Ba'athist Party (refers to Iraq during the rule of the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party in 1963 and 1968 and up and until March of 2003). Certainly Assad was adversarial to Iran during the Iraq-Iran War..but today, his son and Iranian leadership move easily and frequently between Damascus and Tehran.

There is currently an existing 10 inch pipe network into Syria, but has not been used for some years. It would take less than 3 years to complete an operational pipeline to the MED while concurrently connecting Iranian pipeline infrastructure with the Iraqi in the south around Basra.

Should this occur, Iran could transport their oil from the fields adjacent to Iraq, up through central Iraq, across the Syrian border and to the MED, thereby bypassing the Straits of Hormuz.

The US has "invested" billions to restore Iraqi pipelines, pumping stations and communication networks to support the Bush era visualization of western style democracy in the Middle East beginning with Iraq.

If the above becomes reality, US and coalition forces have effectively enhanced the financial ability of a nation bent on nuclear weapons to control both Iranian and Iraqi petroleum infrastructure.

So, you ask....how did you come by the revelation...the response..simply by working the EOC/Balad in 2005. In the downtime, looking at the multitude of maps and charts.

I just wonder if our people knew this fact ....and if so, did the possibility of allowing Iranian oil through Iraq and Syria to western markets impact the decision to invade Iraq.

Apparently, not!

HOA/2002;Afgh/2003;Iraq/2005;HOA 2008

Schmedlap

Fri, 07/02/2010 - 8:07am

<blockquote><em>"And so overtly pro-Israel groups such as AEI are given free rein to draw up potential actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran."</em></blockquote>

Sure, but how much influence does AEI have now?

Mark Pyruz

Thu, 07/01/2010 - 1:45pm

Well, Robert, can it be said that President Obama actually engaged Iran in good faith?

If the goal of this track was to prohibit Iran from enriching uranium (allowed under the terms of the NPT), then this effort was never sincere in the first place.

You are aware of the fact that Iran has offered a compromise in the form of a multination nuclear fuel consortium on its own soil- right? But that's been summarily rejected.

You are aware of the fact that Iran has indicated it is willing to sign the AP, if its rights to the nuclear fuel cycle are acknowleged? That's also been rejected,

How about offering Iran a security guarantee, in addition to those PG nations? Thought of that? The Iranians have. But again, that's been summarily shot down.

Then there's the Tehran Declaration, which included Brazil and Turkey as co-signers. As in the case of Iran's potential compromise contained in the previous Paris Agreement of 2003, yet another effort from Iran ignored by the US.

So where is this so-called bid to engage Iran's leaders? President Ahmadinejad has written to President Obama twice. No response.

And so overtly pro-Israel groups such as AEI are given free rein to draw up potential actions against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

I strongly recommend reading the advocacy of Flynt and Hilarry Mann Leverett over at www.racefor iran.com. Their alternative approach is much more realistic as well as advantageous to the United States.