The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a much-anticipated report regarding Iran’s nuclear programs Tuesday afternoon, including hard evidence of certain military aspects of the program that suggest Iran could eventually posses a nuclear weapon. Crucially, the report released Tuesday is the most comprehensive and damning account of Iran’s nuclear program yet, and as such the report will send shockwaves throughout the international community. Reports released late last week and early this week describe Israel as preparing for a military strike against Iran, while defense planners in the United Kingdom are preparing military contingency plans if the United States or another ally chooses to resort to military force in response.
Yet most of what is contained in the report is not new. The report is largely historical in nature, detailing the Iranian regime’s nuclear program from 1989 to 2003. Western governments provided most of the evidence in the report, which concludes that though Iran was on the path to build a nuclear weapon, such efforts largely stopped in 2003. The CIA came to the same conclusion in 2007 and said so publicly.
This raises the question of why those in Western capitals are reacting as if they’ve never heard this evidence before. First, the IAEA placed emphasis on what is known as multiple-source reporting, meaning most of the claims in its report can be backed up by more than one piece of evidence. Second, because the IAEA analysts who came to these conclusions are independent analysts, the report lends legitimacy to Western intelligence estimates—legitimacy that was in short supply when the United States claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Clearly, a nuclear Iran is not in any nation’s interest, especially not those in the Middle East. A nuclear Iran completely changes the power dynamic in the region—and potentially the dynamic across the globe, thereby harming U.S. and allied interests in the region. But what is to be done?
The United States and its international partners have tried successive rounds of increasingly harsh sanctions against the Iranian regime, but these sanctions lack teeth. In contrast, Russia and China have largely ignored the sanctions and have continued trading with Iran. Some analysts point to Chinese firms being directly involved in the Iranian nuclear program, providing industrial components that help in the enrichment of uranium, a key step toward attaining nuclear technology.
It is unlikely that the IAEA report will provide the impetus needed to force Russia and China to begin implementing sanctions. Russia declared Wednesday that it did not view the report as reason enough to enforce such action. And if the United States cannot convince China to stop devaluing its currency, it is unlikely to convince China to stop trading with Iran. Additionally, further sanctions against Iran are unlikely to deliver the desired result. They may, in fact, risk exacerbating the world economic situation. Key allies such as Japan and South Korea depend on Iranian oil to fuel and lubricate their economies, and a disruption in supply could have global ramifications.
Western leaders have discussed military action against Iran, and reports within the last few weeks indicate that these plans may be in advanced stages. Israel recently conducted intensive training in long-range bombing missions, and reports from the United Kingdom indicate that the country’s defense agency is preparing contingency plans to support U.S. or allied military action.
Yet the likelihood of a military action achieving anything of significance is almost nil. Iran maintains its nuclear program in deep bunkers and bases out of the reach of even the best weapons Western powers have to offer. Their nuclear sites are clandestine and diffuse; meaning the chance of hitting all of them is small. And to have any appreciable effect, a military attack must destroy Iran’s nuclear capability, not simply damage it. The Iranian military is no pushover, and possesses credible retaliatory capabilities. In this scenario, Israeli and U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would become prime Iranian targets.
Setting the program back a few years will not increase international security; it may even make matters worse. A preemptive attack on the Iranian regime may legitimize it among its people and other countries in the region. A nuclear Iran is bad, but a nuclear Iran seeking revenge is worse. If an attack occurs, it must be a full-out attack that completely destroys Iran’s nuclear program. Anything less would be a failure.
Obviously the international community is between a rock and a hard place. As confrontation with Iran would be very costly, the likely course of action is to focus on diplomacy and economic sanctions. France has already called for a summit of the U.N. Security Council to begin discussing such steps.
Ultimately, whatever strategy Western leaders adopt to confront the Iranian nuclear program must be flexible, concerted and supported by international consensus. While diplomacy and sanctions may not be enough to force Iran to give up its program, a military attack should remain a last resort. Finally, the international community must employ diplomacy and tough sanctions, combined with military posturing that lends credit to Western demands while preserving the flexibility to attack should the need arise. These credible and costly signals will demonstrate to the Iranians that the international community means business.
Andrew Thompson is a senior majoring in political science and history. He likes long walks on the beach. Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
