Dropping Iranian Options Off the Table

President Barack Obama has frequently stated that with regard to Iran's nuclear program, all options are open, including bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities. Yet, Obama has been dropping options off the table until the military attack option has become about the only one left standing.

The most intriguing question being raised now is whether or not Obama was mouse-trapped by the Israeli government. Did Israel trick Obama into narrowing his options by orchestrating a "Can't Wait" campaign on the need to bomb Iran now or soon to prevent irreversible progress on developing a nuclear bomb? And did Obama strike an agreement with Israel that if the Israelis didn't attack Iran before the U.S. November elections, the U.S. would do the job for them if Iran crossed a red line, probably short of confirmed development of a nuclear bomb?

The option to have other countries enrich Iranian low-grade uranium was dropped even before U.S.-Israeli consultations of the past few months. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany, once endorsed outsourcing enrichment; however, when Turkey and Brazil were on the verge of such a deal with Iran, the United States led the opposition to it.

During the course of the Cold War, the United States followed a policy of live-and-let-live with the Soviet Union and other nuclear powers, including China. Obama has burned that bridge. So if the talks now underway with the Iranian government fail and sanctions don't induce Iranian capitulation in months, not years, the bombing option is the only one left. There is general agreement that bombing Iran would retard its nuclear program by only a year or two.

Jonathan Schell has said that "Disarmament wars threaten or occur when force becomes the chosen instrument for preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Schell sees a "remarkable" similarity between Obama's policy on Iran and George W. Bush's policy on Iraq a decade ago:

   "As Bush did, Obama suspects a country of developing nuclear weapons. As Bush did, he deems that unacceptable. As Bush did, he rules out the live-and-let-live solution of containment. As Bush did, he identifies military force as the ultimate solution. Most important, as Bush did, he sees the particular crisis in question (Iraq for Bush, Iran for Obama) as a skirmish in the larger global cause of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction."

There are two bills before Congress -- S. Res. 380 and H. Res. 568 -- which would require a military strike on Iran acquiring a "nuclear weapons capability." A total of 26 national organizations have banded together to sign a letter to the House and Senate chairpersons of committees considering the two bills. The organizations oppose the bills and also want the "no contact policy" with Iran abandoned.

In their letter, the 26 organizations cite likely consequences of a military strike on Iran: make a nuclear-armed Iran more likely; impose tremendous burdens on a fragile global economy; spike gas prices; cut jobs at home; and would be devastating to human rights and the pro-democracy movement in Iran.

Jonathan Schell's solution is to permit Iran's enrichment of nuclear fuel to nuclear power-grade in return for Iran's full disclosure of its nuclear programs and their history, along with acceptance of strict inspections and controls to prevent the country from enriching uranium to nuclear weapons-grade. Or to go Schell one better, the U.S. could follow the live-and-let-live policy of the Cold War.

The best solution of all for nuclear weapons proliferation is a nuclear weapons-free world.

Bright Promise on Nukes Dashed for Major Nuke Opponent

In December 2008, David Krieger, president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, saw president-elect Barack Obama as the great hope for a nuclear weapons-free world, based on statements and promises Obama had made.The Obama statement that Krieger liked the best was: "A world without nuclear weapons is profoundly in America's interest and the world's interest. It is our responsibility to make the commitment, and to do the hard work to make this vision a reality. That's what I've done as a Senator and a candidate, and that's what I'll do as President."

Krieger also quoted Obama as saying: "I will make the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons worldwide a central element of US nuclear policy." And who would lead that effort? Obama had said that "if we want the world to de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons, the United States and Russia must lead by example."

David Krieger made a list of specific steps that candidate Obama had said must be taken. I will comment briefly on the current known status of each of the steps.
* lead an international effort to de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons around the world. In April 2010, President Obama renounced the development of any new nuclear weapons and he explicitly committed the United States not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
* strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There has been no action beyond what was said in the first bullet point.
* lock down the loose nuclear weapons that are put there right know. Barack Obama was a leader on this issue when he was a U.S. senator. Although some funding has been provided for this type of program, it has not been a major priority.
* secure all loose nuclear materials within four years. Well behind schedule
* immediately stand down all nuclear forces to be reduced under the Moscow Treaty and urge Russia to do the same. The status of this step is uncertain, although Obama has pushed back the warhead dismantlement date based on compliance with prior START treaties.
* seek Russia's agreement to extend essential monitoring and verification provisions of the START I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) before it expires in December 2009. No information on this step.
* work with Russia to take US and Russian ballistic weapons stockpiles off hair-trigger alert. No information on this step.
* work with other nuclear powers to reduce global nuclear weapons stockpiles dramatically by the end of his presidency. The focus has been almost solely on Iran.
* stop the development of new nuclear weapons. Obama has pledged to not develop any new nuclear weapons; however, the building of three new nuclear weapons facilities will quadruple the capacity to build "pits", the triggers for nuclear weapons.
* seek dramatic reductions in US and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material. Besides the three new facilities in the modernization program, the future weapons blueprint calls for a new class of nuclear submarines, new nuclear-capable bomber and fighter aircraft, and updated nuclear bomb warheads and missiles. The price tag of $185 billion for just the next decade will almost certainly be greatly exceeded.
* set a goal to expand the US-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. No evident progress.
* build a bipartisan consensus for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Totally off the table.
* cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. Obama has continued funding at about past levels. Deployment of anti-missile systems continues. Instead of a missile defense designed to knock down improbably launched long-range missiles by Iran, as proposed by President Bush, President Obama is proposing to station in Eastern Europe, smaller SAM-3 missiles designed to blow up short-range missiles launched by Iran.
* not weaponize space. The Pentagon currently has a space command with a mission to put weapons in space.

One further comment on our current nuclear weapons arsenal: the enormous explosive yields of the U.S. arsenal makes it inappropriate for use against weak, desperate adversaries. Moreover, the collateral damage from an attack on our adversaries could cause great suffering to our friends land allies, even bringing on the possibility of a devastating nuclear winter.