Real Iran Risk Is Of Accidental War


There's a certain momentum to the U.S. public discourse over Iran this year, as there hasn't been since...actually, no, it's pretty much been a steady drumbeat for a decade now. We've had countless predictions that Iran would go fully nuclear this year or next and countless predictions that the U.S. or Israel would attack Iran pre-emptively. Neither has happened, despite these predictions from necons and neoliberals alike and despite an entire forest of paper being wasted on lurid stories which are always shaky at best.

Why? Because Iran has been forthright - it wants the Japan Option, a capability to build a weapon swiftly rather than a weapon-in-being, and something that isn't illegal by the NPT treaty or any other - and because even the Pentagon realizes any attack on Iran would be sheer lunacy which would guarantee both nations would come out in worse situations than they went in. What the U.S., Israel and and their allies are engaged in is a form of "strategic ambiguity", where threats of war are meant to leverage Iran into backing down and offering concessions. Unfortunately for this idea, every part of Iran's political spectrum, including the Green reformists, is heavily invested in Iran keeping what it believes it has by right and international law. So despite Iran offering concessions that fall short of ending their enrichment program more than once, the U.S. and it's allies have never seriously considered those overtures. It's an object lesson - you shouldn't play poker with a haggler.

And so the whole sorry mess grinds on year after year. The real war risk isn't that iran will launch proxy attacks on CONUS, or that the U.S. will launch pre-emptive cruise missiles at Tehran. the real risk is an incident that turns into an accidental shooting war. Der Spiegel's Alexander Smoltczyk got that exactly right this week. Most worryingly, we don't even have the level of contact that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. had during the Cold War to head off such accidental wars.

Senior U.S. military commanders have worried about such a miscalculation for some time. During his last days on the job, then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen raised such worries. "We haven't had a connection with Iran since 1979. Even in the darkest days of the Cold War, we had links to the Soviet Union," Mullen said. "We are not talking to Iran, so we don't understand each other. If something happens, it's virtually assured that we won't get it right, that there will be miscalculation."

And that scenario, Mullen warned, "would be extremely dangerous in that part of the world."

We came too close in 2008 and before that in 2007. The world cannot continue to merely hope we remain lucky.


Steve Hynd February 1, 2012 - 4:09pm
( categories: Iran )

...is less that they are unswervingly committed to the development of nuclear technology at all costs than it is that - although many cooler heads would like to see the range of issues resolved - those not in the driver's seat at any given instant can't afford to see the guy who is in it successfully resolve anything.

It's a matter for factional competition and career advancement, right until some poor sepah bastard eats ordnance.

"In combat one should be very suspicious of painless moral choices. When you are confronted with a seemingly painless moral choice, the odds are that you haven't looked deeply enough." ~ Karl Marlantes

JustPlainDave February 1, 2012 - 6:09pm

Based on my reading of the Brookings institute's "Which path to Persia", this "misunderstanding" as you would have it,is both expected and planned for as a means to sell casus belli to the public.

Forgive me if I don't take them for what they say so much, as much as I do for what they imply, for these are the same think-tank geniuses who sold Iraq based on lurid stories backed by shaky evidence.

The foreplay has been in the works for years.

Rich_Lather February 2, 2012 - 12:26am

Hi Rich,

I think you have to stretch some to see that even in "Which path to Persia?' (PDF), a three year old monograph by a bunch of fairly hawkish neoliberals at the Saban center, home to calls for intervention in Libya and now Syria. I'd point out that Saban is not the administration and that think-tanks like CNAS, which are far closer to the current US military leadership, are far more more skeptical about military means against Iran. However, if you'd like to cite pages and grafs I'll be happy to take a look, as there's definitely been some part of the neoliberal/neocon policy community which has advocated for exactly what you say.

Steve Hynd February 2, 2012 - 12:45am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.