The composition of Barack Obama's presidential cabinet is daily becoming more clear. A strong influence is evident from the last Democratic presidential administration with Bill Clinton's wife leading the pack. What does this mean in terms of the change in probability that the United States may or may not become involved in a military strike against the nuclear weapons research and production capacity of Iran?
First it is instructive to parse out who would stand to benefit from a nuclear-armed Iran. First and foremost would be Iran itself. Having even a small nuclear arsenal (assuming a delivery system is available) is a powerful deterrent against future aggression by other nation-states of course, and a certain amount of prestige also accrues. The capacity to use nuclear weapons also lends a very big stick to the stick-carrot dichotomy of foreign policy, assuming that Iran's adversaries would be intimidated by such a thing.
So, obviously Iran benefits. Who else might stand to benefit from Iran's ability to (theoretically) obliterate the cities of Teheran's enemies? Syria, of course is closely allied with Iran and is in a constant state of quasi-war with Israel. Syrian leaders might justly feel that fear of attack by Iran would temper any Israeli military response to further provocations along the Syrian-Israeli border. For the Syrians then the benefits of Iranian nuclear weapons development outweigh the potential liabilities.
What are those liabilities? The same issues that prevent Iranian nuclear empowerment from being a net advantage to everyone else; namely that
it is widely assumed Israel possesses a potent nuclear weapons arsenal of their own. While Israel's threats of atomic retribution are veiled at best, one would assume that if attacked by nuclear weapons themselves vengeance would be swift, devastating, and widespread. Israel rightly believes that they are surrounded by enemies both very open and very hostile. After a hypothetical nuclear first-strike by Iran it would be likely that at least a few Israeli cities would be reduced to smouldering, radiating, holes in the ground. Israel has some credible ABM (anti-ballistic missile) capability with its
US-supplied Patriot missile systems and its home-developed
Arrow 2 Theatre Missile Defense systems, though they would be unlikely to form a leak-proof barrier to a determined attack. With the sure knowledge that any nuclear weapons use by the Israelis would harden the loose coalition of Arab nations in their region against them, one could be assured that Israel would make all efforts to ensure that their enemies were critically weakened to forestall any attempts to take advantage of their own nuclear disaster.
This has been a drawn-out way of saying that Tehran and Damascus would certainly be destroyed. Other likely targets would include regional military force concentrations, especially aircraft and naval assets. Looking at the list of nations which had warred with Israel in the past is disquieting: Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Lebanon, Yemen, and others. With the present US military presence, Iraq would be spared. Others on the list are weak, bit players, and could be expected to sit out any conflict if left alone. Libya in the past has aided the enemies of Israel as has North Korea.
The list of threats to Israel is long, but with estimates as large as 200+ available nuclear weapons so is their ability to render a fearsome nuclear strike with plenty left over to use for a second strike or as a diplomatic tool.
So clearly a nuclear armed Iran is a direct enemy of Israel. Ahmadinejab's frequently veiled and not-so veiled belief that Israel should be destroyed is all the evidence of hostile intent a reasonable person needs to perceive the threat of a nuclear first-strike against Israel. Between the physical damage of the nuclear explosions themselves, the EMP damage, and resultant fallout, large parts of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and depending upon wind patterns,Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Cyprus, Turkey, and Iraq could face a contaminated future. Then the Iranian retributive strike. Military sites from Saudi Arabian airfields to Iranian centers of population and industry might well lie in ruins. A nuclear-armed Iran therefore is an indirect enemy of every Middle Eastern nation as well as Libya and North Korea tangentially and every industrialized nation economically. With the potential obliteration of oil production and distribution facilities throughout the region the world's economy would take a deadly blow, and in the present climate of global recession and depression, a blow which might take decades to recover from. At the worst, scenarios which addled survivalists have prepared for might come to be pass. Bad times all around at the least, and worst times at the worst.
Now how does this all tie back into Barack Obama's cabinet choices? First, a philosophical theme seems to be emerging. For whatever else one might think of Bill Clinton he seemed to pursue a very pragmatic foreign policy. That is one of minimizing threats and foreign provocations while also minimizing any inconvenient idealism abroad. Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, and Iraq continued to be disasters for the most part during Bill Clinton's presidency, but they were almost never American disasters. He continued to support Israel as have other presidential administrations have to help maintain the regional balance and status quo. With a decidedly Clintonesque inner circle forming around Obama it will be hoped this ideology will be adopted as Obama's own, if it isn't already.
If, however, Obama metaphorically leaves Israel twisting in the wind, its enemies will be emboldened. Nothing good can come of that. For better or worse, as Israel proved at Bushwer and Osirik, they will destroy nuclear capabilities which become active. Unlike Bushwer and Osirik, the targets in Iran are much better defended, dispersed, and have been hardened against attack. The United States effectively controls Iraqi airspace and would be in the unenviable position of choosing between assenting to Israeli overflight or engaging their aircraft with USAF assets. Either way the United States would be perceived as an ally, active or supportive, of Israel. Again, nothing but trouble there.
What are Obama's choices? Regime change via hard power in Iran I believe is off the table. Hawkish as I am even I think that would be a terrible idea. Regime change via soft power looks better but with the mullah's grip on power somewhat firm unlikely to be successful. Declaration of a formal US military protective agreement with Israel might be part of the equation. Israel is already perceived to be America's pet lapdog so we could hardly be perceived any worse. Still, this approach seems unlikely as Obama will likely be loath to make such binding agreements on such a contentious issue.
Whatever options Obama has, doing nothing will just lead to us all waking up to the news that Israel has just launched a massive coordinated assault of all known Iranian nuclear weapons development sites with a correspondingly large report of damage and death.
What do i think will happen? I believe that Obama's Secretary of State will work the phones hard, but to no avail. Israel will launch their expected preemptive attack and announce their intentions to defend themselves with all vigor, including the use of widely-distributed mushroom clouds on the homelands of those who would be their enemy. Obama will be forced by circumstance to allow overflight of Iraq to carry out this mission although I doubt aerial tanker or other logistic assistance would be given. The USAF will not allow overflight of Iraq by Iranian aircraft and ABM defenses would definitely be activated. The middle eastern security situation will of course deteriorate and the calls to pull out of Iraq will increase. Oil prices will skyrocket just as western economies are at their most fragile making an already bad situation worse. Obama not be allowed to choose middle ground; either he will actively support Israeli defense or he will be forced to abandon the traditional American position entirely.
Either way its a big crap sandwich, and our only choice will be to learn to like the taste of crap.
