Are we on the verge of yet another exciting military adventure in
the Middle East? The sabers are certainly rattling in a manner
reminiscent of the prelude to the Iraq war, as numerous government
officials, politicians, and pundits are laying the groundwork for an
attack on Iran. How likely is it that Iran wants to become a nuclear
power, and how long would it take to accomplish this? If they did
manage to construct a nuclear weapon, would that really create an
unacceptable situation? In particular, how much of a threat would
this pose to the US and to Israel?
To start with, what is involved in constructing a nuclear weapon?
How long would it take?
Building a Nuclear Weapon
Naturally occurring uranium samples contain about 0.7% of the
isotope U-235 , which is what fuels the fission process fundamental
both to energy generation and to nuclear explosives (the rest being
almost all U-238). In order to be useful in most nuclear reactors,
the initial uranium must be processed (enriched) to raise the U-235
content to about 4%. There are medical applications requiring
enrichment to about 20% U-235. For a nuclear warhead, enrichment to
about 90% is necessary.
Enrichment is a slow, tedious, costly process. After obtaining an
adequate amount of sufficiently enriched fuel to build a nuclear
explosive, there remains the problem of assembling the mechanisms
for triggering the actual explosion. While there is no mystery as to
how to accomplish this, it is by no means a trivial task to build
such devices. Finally, after constructing a practical warhead that
is not too bulky or heavy, means for delivering it to the target
have to be developed. The principal solutions here would be aircraft
and rockets. The former are not too difficult to defend against, if
only a few warheads are available, and the latter, particularly the
means for guidance, is by no means easy to develop and produce.
Mastering the technology, producing the enriched uranium,
constructing the actual warhead with the triggering mechanism would
surely take several years. The delivery vehicle, presumably a
missile, would also take years, including integrating the warhead
with the missile. Of course, both problems could be worked on
simultaneously to a large extent.
The Iranian Threat
Iran would probably like to have the capability of producing
nuclear warheads. They have acquired equipment (mainly centrifuges)
to enrich uranium, and have been enriching uranium to the 20% level
of U-235. Quite possibly, they would like to produce nuclear
warheads and the means for delivering them.
But the various inspections of their facilities carried out by the
international agency that oversees the non-proliferation treaty
(NPT), and statements by many experts from various countries, do not
indicate that Iran is now actively pursuing a weapons program. Of
course, they could be wrong. In any event, it is clear that, even
with an all-out effort, it would take several years for Iran to
develop and produce a working nuclear weapon.
If Iran should indeed produce several nuclear weapons a few years
from now, what would they do with them? Iranian behavior in recent
times, and its history over the past several hundred years, suggests
that suicidal actions such as attacking Israel or the US would be
extremely unlikely.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iran's President,
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have made numerous statements over the years to
the effect that the state of Israel should and will
cease to exist. They have not, however, specified how this should,
or would, be accomplished, and, in particular, have not said that
Iran will attack Israel
militarily [Kessler]. They have vowed to
retaliate should they be attacked by the US and/or Israel.
One means for retaliation by Iran in response both to a military
attack and to an economic blockade would be to close off the Strait
of Hormuz, at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. About 20% of the
world's oil supply is carried by tankers thru those waters, which
border on Iran to the East and Saudi Arabia to the West, and other
oil-producing states to the North and South. Iran is equipped to
attack such shipping via mines, shore-to-ship missiles, shore-based
artillery, midget submarines, and small, fast, attack vessels firing
missiles or perhaps torpedoes. They would probably not be able to
block traffic indefinitely in the face of attacks by US naval and
air forces, but blocking the straits even for a few weeks would have
a major effect on world oil prices, and hence on the world economy.
Comparable Cases
Over the past couple of decades, we have seen much agitation over
the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. Various threats,
sanctions, and carrots, as well as sticks, were wielded by the US
and its allies in an unsuccessful effort to stop this from
happening. It appears that North Korea has produced and tested both
atomic explosives (2006) and rudimentary rockets that might
eventually be able to carry them. During this time North Korea
signed, and then later withdrew from, the NPT
[Wikipedia-NPT][Wikipedia-NK].
An important motivation for North Korea's acquisition of nuclear
weapons was to use their existence, in the classical manner, to
deter attacks by others. It is interesting that this factor was
acknowledged by John Bolton, UN Ambassador under the Bush
administration and a super-hawk who advocates attacking Iran now. He
writes, "We won't attack N. Korea because it has nuclear weapons"
[Gharib].
South Africa developed an atomic bomb, with the aid of Israel, and
tested it in 1979 [Wikipedia-SA]. About
six warheads were constructed, and then, in 1989, the post apartheid
government of South Africa voluntarily dismantled them, and, in
1991, signed the NPT.
Neither India nor Pakistan signed the NPT, and both countries
openly developed nuclear weapons (in 1974 and 1998
respectively). Each has about one hundred nuclear weapons.
Israel is widely believed to have a stockpile of from 60 to 200
nuclear weapons, as well as both missiles and bombers systems to
deliver them. It has not signed the NPT and has not publicly
admitted that it possesses such weapons.
The principal nuclear powers are the US, Russia, China, Britain,
and France. The US and Russia each have thousands of nuclear
warheads, while each of the others has a few hundred. They all
signed the NPT.
In December of 2010, the US Senate ratified a treaty with Russia
that will ultimately reduce by 30% the number of long range nuclear
missiles deployed by the two countries. Coming more than two decades
after the end of the cold war, this is hardly a dramatic step toward
the goal of ridding the world of the specter of nuclear
war [Sheridan].
Past US-Iran Relations
The US had good relations with the Shah of Iran. When the
democratic nationalist, Mohammad Mosaddegh, became prime minister
and acted to nationalize Iran's oil fields, Britain and the US
joined forces, in 1953, to overthrow the Iranian government via a
coup engineered by the CIA. Power reverted to the Shah, who resumed
dictatorial control and restored good relations with the US, until
he was overthrown by the successful Islamic revolution in 1979. The
good relations were dissipated by the Iran hostage crisis that
occurred shortly after the successful conclusion of that revolution
[PBS].
The 1980-1988 war between Iraq and Iran was one of the bloodiest
wars since WW II. It was started when Saddam Hussain's troops
invaded Iran. The US, while declaring neutrality, tilted toward
Iraq, e.g., supplying military intelligence, and financial
aid [Wikipedia-IRAQ]. Relations among
the US, Israel, Iraq, and Iran varied in strange and surprising ways
during this period [Riedel]. E.g., Israel at
one point sided with Iran.
Attacks on Iran
In 1988, a missile fired from a US naval vessel downed a scheduled
Iranian airliner over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf,
killing 290 people, including 66
children [Wikipedia655]. Without
apologizing or admitting responsibility, the US settled a claim
before The International Court of Justice by paying about $62
million, presumably to compensate families of victims.
Over the past few years, the US, in collaboration with Israel,
launched cyber attacks against Iranian nuclear
facilities [Sanger]. A sophisticated espionage
operation obtained detailed information about the uranium enrichment
process used by the Iranians. This information was then used to to
develop a computer worm that was surreptitiously inserted into the
computers controlling the centrifuges that did the enrichment. The
effect was to cause many of the centrifuges to behave erratically,
often speeding up to the point where almost a thousand (of roughly
five thousand units) destroyed themselves.
Since 2007, five Iranian scientists associated with their nuclear
program have been murdered by terrorists financed, trained, and
armed by Israel. The US government is aware of this campaign, but
denies "direct" involvement [Engel]. The group
believed to be carrying out the murders, People's Mujahedin of Iran
(aka MEK), is on the US list of terrorist organizations, having
killed Americans in the past. A number of Americans prominent in the
political arena, including Howard Dean, Rudolph Giuliani, and Bill
Richardson have accepted substantial fees in return for lobbying and
making public statements advocating that MEK be removed from the
terrorist list [Peterson-MEK]. (None of
them seem to be in danger of prosecution for consorting with a
terrorist organization.)
Sanctions and Threats Against Iran
There is an extensive history, dating back several decades, of
false alarms sounded in US mass media warning that Iran will, in a
few years, acquire nuclear weapons, including long range
missiles [Peterson-Warnings]. The
most recent such alarm, quoting unnamed pentagon sources, occurred
in mid July [Greenwald].
The UN, the European Union, the US, and some other nations have,
since 2006, imposed an increasingly wide range of sanctions on Iran
aimed at pressuring Iran into stopping efforts to develop nuclear
weapons. These have included blocking exports to Iran of materials
deemed relevant to nuclear technology, blocking weapons sales,
freezing financial assets, travel bans, and embargoes on imports,
and on the
sale of Iranian oil [Wikipedia-IRAN].
President Obama has stated that the US would take military action,
if necessary, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. A NY
Times article reported that, "Mr. Obama rejected suggestions that
the United States was willing to try to contain a nuclear-armed
Iran. He declared explicitly that his administration would use
force—a 'military component,' as he put it—only as a last
resort to prevent Tehran from acquiring a
bomb." [Landler][Wright]
The same article reported that Israel has indicated that it would
attack Iran if it acquired a capability to produce atomic
weapons. There are news stories suggesting that Israel has decided
to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities prior to the upcoming US
presidential election, but I couldn't find any clear, authoritative
quotes, and this might be part of a propaganda campaign to increase
pressure on Iran.
What Next?
In one scenario, Israel bombs the sites housing Iran's nuclear
facilities a month or two prior to the US elections. Iran would,
doubtless, retaliate, perhaps by getting Hezbollah, which it
supports, to attack Israel with missiles from its bases in
Lebanon. This would put great political pressure on President Obama
to support Israel, e.g., by using air power to help to suppress
attacks from Lebanon. A land invasion of Iran is unlikely as it
would be a major undertaking for the US. In both area and
population, Iran is bigger than the combination of Iraq and
Afghanistan.
An alternative is that, if the polls should show Romney ahead, the
Obama administration might launch an aerial attack on those
facilities prior to the election, to turn the tide.
Another plausible train of events would be increased economic and
financial pressure on Iran, accompanied by aggressive military
measures such as, warships in the Persian Gulf, and overflights of
military aircraft, that might precipitate an Iranian reaction that
could serve as a pretext for an attack. This might occur before or
after the election.
A False Crisis?
Whether or not Iran intends to produce a nuclear weapon is by no
means clear. The Ayatollah Khamenei, who is the actual leader of the
country, has, over the years, repeatedly stated his opposition to
nuclear weapons. A few months ago, he said, "the Islamic Republic,
logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession
of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of
such weapons is senseless, destructive and
dangerous." [Cole] There is no evidence that
this is not a sincere statement of his views. Nor are there
indications that he is not in control of the country.
Maybe the actual policy of Iran is not quite what he would like it
to be and there are plans to get Iran into a position where, if they
wanted to, they could produce a nuclear weapon. Japan, for
example, could certainly produce an atomic weapon if it wished,
within perhaps a year. Note that false alarms have been raised for
several decades about Iran acquiring nuclear
weapons [Peterson].
Finally, consider the worst case: that Iran does actually construct
a nuclear weapon as soon as possible. The addition of another
nuclear-armed nation would not be desirable. But why should it be
considered to be unacceptable?
There are now thousands of nuclear weapons in the world, possessed
by 9 different countries. We survived the cold war period during
which the Soviet Union targeted our cities with devastating
missiles. India and Pakistan have clashed with conventional weapons
after both countries went nuclear, refraining from the use of their
nuclear weapons. Despite a lot fuming and fussing, we are managing
to live with the fact that North Korea has joined the nuclear club.
While Iran has supported armed fighters outside its borders, it has
not initiated a war for several centuries. Iran has been a good deal
less bellicose than the US, the only country to use an atomic
bomb. The US has supported armed fighters outside its
borders—in more than one situation during the past six decades,
and has attacked more than a half dozen countries since WW II, and
killed people in several others).
Skepticism about the wisdom of an attack on Iran by Israel and/or
the US has been expressed by high level recently retired Israeli
military leaders and analysts. The views of an Israeli-American
scholar, who has written extensively about nuclear weapons, support
this skepticism [Cohen].
Of course, any nation is entitled to use force to defend itself
against an attack by another nation. It might also be acceptable
under international law to initiate violent defensive measures in
response to an imminent attack by another nation, altho there may be
disputes about exactly what constitutes imminence.
But an attack cannot be justified by a claim that the victim has
acquired the means for attacking another nation. This would, under
any reasonable interpretation of international law, be considered an
act of aggression. Such an argument would legitimate an attack on
the US by any nation, since we obviously are capable of attacking
any other nation. Of course it is even more indefensible to attack a
nation on the grounds that it is planning to acquire the
means for attacking another nation a few years from now.
Nobody can predict what the specific consequences of an attack on
Iran would be, but it is hard to believe that the price would not be
high.