Prepare to attack [Iran]

In a declassified National Intelligence Estimate, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, the U.S. intelligence agencies announced last December, “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”

This highly controversial conclusion encouraged the Iranian leadership to dismiss the possibility of an American attack, permitting Tehran to stake out an increasingly bellicose position and rendering further negotiations predictably futile.

Ideally, the Iranians themselves can still be induced to close down their nuclear program, for the alternatives – either a U.S. or Israeli attack, or allowing the apocalyptically-minded leadership in Tehran to get the Bomb – are far worse.

Reviving a sense of apprehension in Iran offers the unique way to achieve this goal. Only by convincing Tehran that it will never be allowed to have nuclear weapons can Washington persuade it to terminate its program, avoiding the need for a military campaign. This can yet be attained, but it requires a basic shift in U.S. policy.

First, the Bush administration must prepare for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and, second, signal this publicly. (Israeli leaders should do likewise, as some have done already.) Third, the administration must weather the inevitable tsunami of criticism. Fourth, it should encourage those governments most opposed to such an attack – including the European Union, Russia, and China – to lean on Tehran to end its nuclear program.

Should this approach succeed, the crisis is resolved. Should it not, the U.S. presidential election in November will loom large. “There’s only one thing worse than the United States exercising a military option,” John McCain has said. “That is a nuclear-armed Iran.” In contrast, Barack Obama has called for “tough-minded diplomacy,” “stronger [economic] sanctions,” and “alternative sources of energy” – basically, a call for more of the same.

If George W. Bush’s term ends with a McCain victory, Bush will likely punt, allowing McCain to decide on the next steps. But Obama’s intention to continue with current failed policies suggests that, if he wins, and despite the tradition of outgoing presidents not undertaking major initiatives in their final weeks, Bush might initiate military action against Iran.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

June 11, 2008 update: I have been asked about the feasibility of an Israeli strike. On this topic, see, “Israeli Jets vs. Iranian Nukes.” For a look at the possible outcome of an Iranian-Israeli nuclear exchange, see “The Unthinkable Consequences of an Iran-Israel Nuclear Exchange.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daniel Pipes, a historian, has led the Middle East Forum since its founding in 1994 and currently serves as chairman on the board of directors. He taught at Chicago, Harvard, Pepperdine, and the U.S. Naval War College. He served in five U.S. administrations, received two presidential appointments, and testified before many congressional committees. The author of 16 books on the Middle East, Islam, and other topics, Mr. Pipes writes a column for the Washington Times and the Spectator; his work has been translated into 39 languages. DanielPipes.org contains an archive of his writings and media appearances; he tweets at @DanielPipes. He received both his A.B. and Ph.D. from Harvard. The Washington Post deems him “perhaps the most prominent U.S. scholar on radical Islam.” Al-Qaeda invited Mr. Pipes to convert and Edward Said called him an “Orientalist.”
See more from this Author
Misconduct Fits a Pro-Hamas Strategy That Involves a Logic of Suffering and Martyrdom
The Trump Administration Has Not Ended Foreign Aid, but Questions Whether It Serves the American Taxpayer
Trump Should Consider the Factors Involved Before Spontaneously Threatening Foreign Policy Changes
See more on this Topic
I recently witnessed something I haven’t seen in a long time. On Friday, August 16, 2024, a group of pro-Hamas activists packed up their signs and went home in the face of spirited and non-violent opposition from a coalition of pro-American Iranians and American Jews. The last time I saw anything like that happen was in 2006 or 2007, when I led a crowd of Israel supporters in chants in order to silence a heckler standing on the sidewalk near the town common in Amherst, Massachusetts. The ridicule was enough to prompt him and his fellow anti-Israel activists to walk away, as we cheered their departure. It was glorious.