On "Iran Study pulls Military Option off the Table"

Jed

This letter refers to Iran Study pulls Military Option off the Table.

I disagree with you that the military option against Iran is off the table as a result of the National intelligence Estimate. I am not convinced. Recent statements make it clear that it is definitely still ON the table.

Before the Annapolis Conference, Prime Minister Olmert was quoted in Yedioth Ahronoth: "It is possible to deal with the Iranian problem by military means, and it is possible to bear the cost that such an operation entails."

In Israel, serious thought has gone into weighing the risks and benefits of a military response to Iran, for being suspected of developing a nuclear weapon. Clearly Mr. Olmert saw this option as a workable possible response. The costs of a preemptive military operation might be more than Mr. Olmert calculates. An attack, even if limited to nuclear sites, would be considered an act of war and as such might easily and quickly spread beyond Iran to the broader region, including Israel, It would likely increase the risk of terror attacks against the US homeland as well.

In the NIE it was the consensus decision of the 16 US intelligence agencies that: "We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003 Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. "

and: "We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we don't know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

In his press conference Tuesday morning, president Bush said in response to the specific question: "do the new findings take the military option that you've talked about off the table?"

POTUS: "You know, the NIE also said that such pressure was effective, and that's what our government has been explaining to other partners in keeping the international pressure on Iran. The best diplomacy, effective diplomacy, is one of which all options are on the table."

also later in the interview: "Look, Iran was dangerous, Iran is dangerous, and Iran will be dangerous if they have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

and: "the NIE doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world."

On October 17th president Bush used the exact same language, word for word: "If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it'd be a dangerous threat to world peace, so I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Not once has there been made an assertion that Iran has a nuclear weapon. Possession of weapons of mass destruction is not being held out, as in the case of Iraq, as a possible casus belli for war with Iran. Similarly, there has not been any evidence presented in public until the NIE to show Iran was doing anything to weaponize their nuclear program, which they have always claimed was for civilian energy use only. Now there is evidence presented in public that there was a program to create a nuclear warhead, but that the program was suspended.

Bush said before and after the NIE announcement that Iran must be prevented from "having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." In this Mr. Bush appears to be saying it will be necessary to act not to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon or using a nuclear weapon or even intending to create one, but for simply having the knowledge needed to make one. In the meantime Iran continues to enrich uranium. This would seem to indicate that the US has not changed its strategy toward Iran and has even appeared to lower it's threshold for taking (military) action.

Here are the words of Defense Minister Ehud Barak: from Nov. 4, reported in the International Herald Tribune:

"It is apparently true that in 2003 Iran stopped pursuing its military nuclear program for a certain period of time," Barak said on Israeli Army Radio. "But in our estimation, since then it is apparently continuing with its program."

and: "It is our responsibility to ensure that the right steps are taken against the Iranian regime. As is well known, words don't stop missiles."

Today, on Dec 7th Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni addressed NATO in Brussels: "There are the old-fashioned threats coming from states like Iran - a dangerous regime based on an extreme religious ideology and speaks clearly about its vision of wiping a state off the map, denies the Holocaust, works with radical elements in order to undermine other regimes in the region and financing terrorist organizations - while simultaneously tries to achieve nuclear weapons" Livni said.

"Have no mistakes - This is the Iranian goal - this is the purpose of the continuous enrichment program - in clear violation of the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] and Security Council resolutions. There is not, and there should not be any dispute on this," With the statements by Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak, the Israeli government position seems to be unifying around maintaining that Iran is continuing its nuclear weapons program. As such, Iran is a current danger and military action may be required.

The NIE might actually make diplomacy less effective. There are indications after the document was released, that China and Russia are no longer considering the harsher sanctions for which that the US is advocating. This takes away one of the smaller sticks. This will limit the ability of the US and Europe to ratchet up the diplomatic pressure on Iran and will ironically make resorting to or threatening the military option by either Israel or the US more possible. The new NIE will make it more difficult to convince Americans and Israelis and the rest of the world to support a military a strategy. However, as the Iraq war illustrates, public opinion does not prevent military action.

When I heard the news of the NIE on Monday (12/3/07) my first interpretation was similar to yours. In contrast, however, I was initially pleased. I hoped that the world would take a step back from moving again toward war. I hoped that perhaps diplomatic negotiations would be given a chance. It may be, as you say, less likely and more difficult as you say in "..Freedom to Grumble" but it's clear from the words of Bush, Barak and Livni, leaders of the two governments that have contemplated it, that the military option against Iran is clearly still ON the table. This is something we don't need to disagree over.