There have been a few (!!) diaries about Iran recently, but I'd like to summarise things in a short diary.
1. War is not justified; quite the opposite, Iran's position is much more legitimate;
2. War would be disastrous for everybody;
3. Everybody knows it and acts accordingly.
(by war, I mean any act of military aggression, whether aerial bombings, a ground attack or a nuclear strike)
1. War is not justified
The build up in the rhetoric about Iran is linked to their voluntary ambiguity about their nuclear program: civilian energy, or military development? The facts, despite all the hoopla, are pretty simple:
- Iran is deliberately choosing technological options that makes less sense for a civilian program, and make sense if a military program is the goal;
- however, they are not, so far, in breach of their obligations under the NPT and are still allowing inspections from IAEA to continue.
There is NO CASE today for a military intervention under any interpretation of international law, as londanium makes clear in this comment (which means, in his view, a total impossibility for the UK to participate in any way to military action).
The worries about Iranians nukes are, in my view (expressed last year here: Let Iran have the bomb) overblown. What is very real and very understandable are Iran's motivations:
- they are very objectively threatened by the USA today, with US soldiers massively present (and effectively running the country) in two of its neighbors, Iraq and Afghanistan, and present in several more (bases in Turkey and in various places in the Persian Gulf, plus in Azerbaijan);
- the USA have a long and still recent history of meddling in the country, as in 1953 with Mossadegh and then with the Shah regime;
- the USA are refusing the very reasonable peace talks that Iran has offered, and has long used bellicose words (the latest being the "Axis of Evil") against Iran;
- the USA are intervening militarily in countries without nuclear weapons, but are doing very little about "rogue states" with nuclear weapons, like North Korea or even Pakistan.
Thus, while the international community worries about Iran's nuclear intentions, it has, as of today, no real case for war - and every reason to try to get the USA to the negotiating table.
2. War would be disastrous
In this diary, we discussed extensively the likely consequences of a US attack on Iran. The conclusion is simple: in the words of ThatBritGuy, "I cannot think of any way to game this all the way through and leave the US ahead".
I'll repeat and expand upon what I wrote there:
- no military attack can successfully eliminate Iran's nuclear program or even lead to regime change in Iran;
- Iran will retaliate, and will have every reason and right to do so;
- the most lethal weapon they have is their ability to close off the Straits of Hormuz, the only passage for most Middle Eastern oil. This can be done simply by sinking one tanker, even "accidentally", as the insurance market will withdraw cover and no shipowner in its right mind will go there on its own. As US wargames in 2002 showed, the Iranians may sink not just tankers, but also US aircraft carriers;
- oil prices will jump to several hundrad dollars or more, markets will crash, and rationing in all Western countries will be the only option if the crisis lasts more than a few days (which wars easily do). Disruption and economic damages will be massive, even without retaliation in the form of terrorist attacks in the heart of our countries, a very likely prospect;
- the behavior if Russia, China and the Arab world is hard to predict, but is unlikely to be friendly. How hostile will depend on the nature of the US attack, and how their own interests are hit (a disruption of Chinese imports from the Middle East, for instance, could put that country on a direct collision course with the USA).
In a word, a preemptive attack on Iran would be unjustifiable and would throw the world in an unprecedented crisis - and that's without the use of nukes.
3. Everybody knows it
The Iranians know all the above, thus their continuous provocative and taunting behavior.
The Europeans know it, thus their increasingly desperate attempts to bring the Bush administration to the negotiating table - the most important thing missing to find a peaceful solution.
The Chinese know it, and have repeatedly made clear publicly that an attack on Iran would be disastrous to them and thus intolerable. I expect - and hope - that they are conducting behind the scenes diplomacy to threaten the Bush administration of the worst consequences in case of an attack.
More importantly, the Bush administration knows it as well. Like all bullies, who love to explain that "these people only understand force", they only understand force, and they certainly understand that they are in a weak position.
Thus their strategy to threaten insanity, as a diplomatic gambit. "Do as we tell us, or we'll do something really crazy. Sure, we'll get hurt, but you'll be destroyed. Be reasonable, because we won't be". It's a well known, if high-risk, strategy in game theory. And it's made credible, paradoxically, by the mess in Iraq: "see how stupid we can be - and you better believe we are ready to do it again".
But the cards are simply not on the US side. Hormuz is better than a nuclear weapon for the Iranians, and it's even easier to finetune (let tankers to China pass through, but no others, for instance).
And that optimism is shared by the "predictions markets", i.e. these markets where punters bet on some future events. The recent hoopla about Iran has not modified the price on Tradesports of the contract which gives you $100 if there is an attack on iran before March 2007:
Trust the markets, for once!
Iran diaries on European Tribune:
Some good news about Iran by Jerome a Paris
Iran: still no military solution by IdiotSavant
Billmon: Mutually Assured Dementia by Bernhard
The US as nuclear rogue State by Sirocco
Hersh: the Iran plans by whataboutbob
Iran ready for high level talks; US resist by Jerome a Paris
Are you sure you want to legalize preemptive strikes? by Colman
Gnomemoot 0: how bad could Iran get? by Colman
Stalemate in the UN Security Council. A New "Cold War" with Iran? by verchenceto
Gnomemoot 0: A poorly thought out proposal by Colman
John Bolton is Lying about Iran's Nukes by Steven D
Huh, Iran has uranium mines by Colman
Let me kill off once and for all the Iranian oil bourse story by Jerome a Paris
I have a cunning plan my Lord by Colman
Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours by Colman
Gnomemoot: should we get on the record? by wchurchill
Gnomemoot 0: Iran - problem summary and more questions by Colman
EU 3 meeting with Iran today by whataboutbob
The Monolith Crumbles: Reality and Revisionism in Iran by ghandi
Let Iran have the bomb by Jerome a Paris (Feb. 2005)