Here at the HPR, Iran has been a hot topic of discussion lately. Below, Eric Hendey and Tom Lemberg offer their takes on the situation with Iran.
Eric Hendey: Ignore the Election-Year Rhetoric
An anonymous columnist from The Economist recently took on the voice of Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a humorous blog post. In the piece, the Supreme Leader analyzes the hawkish statements of American leaders, discerning whether or not the risk of war is serious. In particular, he worries about Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s purported intent to send more warships to Iran’s shores. Having already experienced two Bushes and one Clinton, however, Khamenei has become familiar with American speechifying:
I’m not convinced. Our intelligence people point out that this Romney is just a businessman from an unloved minority sect. Our own bazaaris tend not to like war. He is probably just pandering to the Zionists, as they all do.
We should certainly take a leaf from the Supreme Leader’s book when analyzing our politicians’ proclamations on Iran. For better or for worse, every public statement made until November will be colored by the upcoming election.
Foreign policy with Israel has never been more politicized than it is today. Over the past decade, Republicans have hoped to turn support for Israel into a wedge issue, one that could sway traditionally Democratic Jewish voters. This has led to an arms race with the Democrats over who can seem more pro-Israel.
Just take a look at what has been said this election cycle. In an interview with a Jewish cable TV station, Newt Gingrich called the Palestinians “an invented people” who want to destroy Israel. Politicians on both sides, not just the evangelical Right, have been guilty of making sweeping statements about Israel.
The pro-Israel lobby is powerful. Its capacity to steer campaign contributions to supportive candidates has certainly had an impact on the national discourse. This is part of the reason why President Obama, in a recent address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, stressed that he would not hesitate to attack Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
The seeming eagerness of American politicians for war could be a cause for concern. However, the result will likely not be an attack by the U.S. military. Despite the saber-rattling, negotiations over the nuclear program have resumed, and we are likely to see the continuation of the current containment system.
Yet it is almost impossible to sell a moderate program of sanctions and negotiations as part of a presidential campaign; we can expect to hear many more threats of warships or worse. This situation begs a bigger question: what effect does the democratic political process have on global peace? On the one hand, elections encourage aggressive rhetoric. On the other hand, drawn-out wars have often undermined support for elected officials. So what we can really expect from situations like this is a lot of talk and little action—another compelling reason to ignore the rhetoric.
Tom Lemberg: Consider the Cyber Option
Economic sanctions and military force are getting a lot of attention these days as ways of halting the purported Iranian drive for a nuclear weapon. Yet there is an under-considered alternative—the cyber option. Relatively low costs and risks make cyberattacks on the Iranian nuclear weapons program an attractive option.
To begin, let’s recall Stuxnet, the computer worm that sabotaged Iran’s nuclear program in 2010, setting it back two years. Cybersecurity firms from multiple countries have concluded that the worm could not have been developed without government support, naming the United States and Israel as its likely creators. Researchers at Symantec, an American cybersecurity firm, recently discovered a new Stuxnet virus, indicating that future cyberattacks are a real possibility.
Cyberattacks have unique advantages. For one, they are an order of magnitude cheaper than the alternatives; trade sanctions can trigger an increase in oil prices, and military force is inherently expensive in terms of both dollars and lives. Secondly, cyberattacks are effective—when they work, they work.
There are certainly drawbacks. Although the attacks occur under the radar, they are not necessarily discrete, and another cyberattack could incite some kind of Iranian retaliation. Reliability is another concern. After all, Stuxnet was the first worm of its kind, and there is no guarantee that another virus will be able to upend the Iranian weapons program soon enough.
Yet assessing ways of undermining the Iranian nuclear program is a comparative exercise, and the alternatives don’t look promising. Though sanctions have reduced Iranian oil exports to Asia, sanctions are unlikely to damage Iran’s economy enough to make its authoritarian leadership reconsider the program. A military strike on Iran would likely unite the Iranian population under an anti-West banner, and it might not even cripple the Iranian weapons program for long.
With Iran’s nuclear program still at least two years away from nuclear launch capability, it seems the cyber option deserves a fair shot, or at least more attention.
Photo Credit: United States Navy
