Why an Attack on Iran is Imminent

I believe that a U.S. attack on Iran is no longer a question of ‘if’ but ‘when.’ In stating my reasons for such an attack, I will ask three simple questions.

1) Is Iran intent on building a nuclear weapon?

2) Can Iran’s nuclear program be stopped peacefully?

3) Is George Bush firmly dedicated to preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon?

1) Is Iran intent on building a nuclear weapon?

Based on the words and secretive actions of Iran’s mullahs, there is very little doubt that Iran is intent on building a nuclear weapon. For example, last year Iran claimed that it was not using Pakistani-designed P-2 centrifuges to enrich uranium. IAEA inspectors found these P-2 centrifuges with traces of enriched uranium in the nuclear facility at Natanz. Iran had also promised the IAEA that it would stop work on the heavy water to manufacture plutonium that it had been operating. IAEA inspectors discovered that the heavy water plant at Arak was still operating. The argument that the nuclear reactors are intended only for peaceful energy purposes is also ridiculous when one examines at the costs of producing nuclear energy versus the cost of mining its vast oil reserves.

Richard Russell, Professor of National Security Affairs at the National Defense University’s Near East-South Asia Center for Strategic Studies, wrote an excellent paper in 2004 on the Iran problem. He discusses Iran’s basic strategy:

The Iranians have learned that the road to nuclear weapons is best paved with ambiguity. The Israelis, Pakistanis, Indians, and apparently the North Koreans successfully acquired nuclear weapons by cloaking their research, development, procurement, and deployment efforts with cover stories that their efforts were all geared to civilian nuclear energy programs, not to be harnessed for military applications. Tehran could not have failed to notice that once these states acquired nuclear weapons mated with aircraft and missile delivery systems, they escaped—so far, at least—military preemptive and preventive action by rival states. In marked contrast, the Iraqis suffered as the result of Israeli and American preventive military actions, in part because Baghdad was not fast enough in acquiring nuclear weapons. The Israeli strike on an Iraqi nuclear research plant in 1981 and the American wars against Iraq in 1991 and 2003 might have been deterred had Iraq managed to acquire nuclear weapons.

In fact, it is becoming increasingly clear that Iran is at an advanced stage in its nuclear program. As expected and over the objections of President Bush, Iran signed an agreement with Russia on Sunday for Russia to supply nuclear fuel to Iran’s nuclear reactor in Bushehr.

2) Can Iran’s nuclear program be stopped peacefully?

According to the Russian deal, Iran is supposed to return spent its fuel rods to Russia over a set time frame, although the time frame is being kept secret. I don’t think anyone truly believes that this “safeguard” is going to prevent Iran from using the fuel for weapon purposes. Based upon the history of the UN and IAEA failures to recognize nuclear programs, a multinational body to monitor the safeguards will not add much confidence.

After all, both Iraq and North Korea were both officially in good standing with the IAEA while they were building sophisticated nuclear programs. North Korea’s program was only discovered after U.S. intelligence caught Pyongyang working clandestinely on a uranium enrichment program. Iraq’s program was discovered after the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Meanwhile, it is clear that Europeans have no real stomach for confronting Iran in any substantial manner. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stated earlier this month that a nuclear program for civilian purpose is the legitimate right of Iran’s mullahs. In a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, Fischer said that Germany supports Iran`s nuclear program. Additionally, IAEA Director Mohammed El-Baradei insists that there is no new evidence that Iran is working on a nuclear program. In an interview with the Washington Post, El-Baradei stated, "If I look at the big picture, there is no enrichment in Iran, and this is quite satisfactory, and I hope it keeps this way until we reach an agreement,” If the IAEA works in a similarly accommodating fashion that Hans Blix did in the run up to the Iraq War, there is no doubt that Iran can and will do whatever it wishes and still get a clean bill of health.

Even if Europe agrees to bring Iran’s case to the U.N. Security Council, the end result would be to give Iran additional time to continue its clandestine program. We have also already seen how effective the U.N. economic sanctions were in Iraq at hurting Saddam’s regime.

Is George Bush firmly dedicated to preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon?

This is probably the easiest question to answer. President Bush has stated openly that Iran will not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. After Afghanistan and Iraq, I don’t think there are many people in the world who doubt his words. On Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer also agreed that President Bush would not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon. European actions currently underway will only delay the ultimate decision, not prevent it.

Other Options

Israel could beat the U.S. to the punch and attack unilaterally as it did in 1981 when it destroyed the Osirak facility in Iraq. However, Israel would face a greater challenge in Iran than it did with Osirak. Iran’s facilities are much farther away from Israel and are also located hundreds of miles from each other, which makes them more difficult to attack simultaneously. Additionally, many of the facilities are likely in areas deep underground or in areas with heavy civilian populations. It is unlikely that such a complex strike could take place without U.S. agreement in any event.

There is also hope that recent pro-democracy demonstrations will effect a regime change in Iran, but the reality of such an event taking place before Iran has a nuclear weapon are more hope than reality at this point.

When European negotiations and/or the U.N. Security Council do nothing to stop Iran’s nuclear programs, George Bush will again be forced to act – with or without world support. The only action available will be to attack Iran’s facilities. It’s no longer a question of if, but when – and how.