The Consequences of the Military Option

On the radar: 5 reasons not to strike Iran; Admin on engagement; Why the situation is complicated; Pundit posturing; Pakistan staffing up; Britain goes thermonuclear; Rademaker breaks out some enrichment math; and Cordesman on strategic competition with Iran.

November 8, 2011 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke and Mary Kaszynski

An ineffective and counterproductive option - A preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is a bad idea on all counts, writes Aaron David Miller in Foreign Policy. An airstrike wouldn’t eliminate the program - but it would give the regime “the kind of legitimacy and urgency that can only come from having been attacked by an outside power.”

--The economic consequences “could be truly global and catastrophic,” as could the strategic implications. “The Iranian capacity to strike the continental United State may be limited, but the capacity to wage a clandestine war against U.S. and Israeli interests across the Middle East is far more formidable.” http://owl.li/7mJa6

Engaging Iran - White House officials expressed concern over the Iran report, but say it’s not enough to sway the administration from its preferred approach - diplomacy and engagement. “The possibility of a U.S. strike is considered remote...partly because there is no certainty it would successfully stop Iran and partly because of the diplomatic and political repercussions for a cash-strapped nation emerging from two wars,” writes AP’s Matthew Lee.

--"We've made it clear that the dual-track approach is what we favor...engagement and international pressure. And that's where the focus of the United States government and this department has been," DOD spokesman Capt. John Kirby said. http://owl.li/7mJjY

The complicated situation with Iran - Richard Weitz gives an overview of the difficult state of play for Iran policy ahead of the latest IAEA report. He notes that the upcoming IAEA report is expected to confirm previous suspicions of some military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program, but will be no smoking gun. A surgical airstrike is not a viable option. Iran is internally divided about its nuclear program. Sanctions are working up to a point. The engagement track has stalled due to Iranian intransigence and internal politics.

--On the military option, Weitz writes, “Due to the configuration of the Iranian program, a surgical airstrike is no longer a viable option for stopping Iran's nuclear progress. The only way to accomplish that would be for the United States to repeat the strategy it misapplied against Iraq in 2003: invade the country, establish a pliant government, and spend months if not years identifying and destroying all possible nuclear weapons sites.” http://owl.li/7mJeE

Welcome to Early Warning - Subscribe to our morning email or follow us on twitter.

Where’s the Commentariat on Iran policy? - Jeffrey Goldberg writes in Bloomberg about Obama, Israel, and the military option. Bret Stephens in the WSJ argues the Iran debate “needs to abandon the conceit that there is a third way between allowing Iran's nuclear drive to proceed effectively unhindered or to use military force to stop it.”

Pakistan staffing up on nuke security - AP reports, “Pakistan is training 8,000 additional people to protect the country's nuclear arsenal, which the U.S. fears could be vulnerable to penetration by Islamist militants at war with the West, the Pakistani military said.” http://owl.li/7mKh9

Grapple X - Tweets @uga_globalzero: “54 years ago today, on 8 November 1957, Britain conducted its first thermonuclear test ‘Grapple X’. fb.me/SJCOEijZ

12 days? - Commentators frequently shorten the time frame in which Iran could acquire enough fissile material for a bomb in order to argue urgency. In today’s Washington Post, Stephen Rademaker and Blaise Misztal configure the assumptions to shorten the time frame to under two weeks. “Once Iran acquires more than 150 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20 percent — which could happen by early 2013 if Iran’s announced plans are realized — it would need only 12 days to produce enough fissile material for a bomb.” You can bet The Institute for Science and International Security, which argues it would likely take Iran at least six months to acquire enough material for a bomb, will correct or clarify that argument within the week. http://owl.li/7mJo3

US-Iran Strategic Competition - Alexander Wilner and Anthony Cordesman have a new report on “The Gulf Military Balance.” (pdf)

--Takeaway from the summary: “Iran and the US will continue to compete militarily as long as the Strait of Hormuz remains strategically critical and Iran seeks to establish itself as a regional power. As Iran is constantly stepping up its efforts to challenge and undermine the US' presence in the Middle East, the US cannot afford to be lax or dismissive in confronting Iran's strategy. To effectively engage Iran, the US must put Iran's perceptions of military competition, as well as its aforementioned conventional and asymmetric capabilities, in careful perspective, and continue to develop the means to counter Iran's evolving assets throughout the region.” http://owl.li/7mJqF