The question of what to do about Iran's nuclear program is a policy riddle of the first order for the United States and the world. It also signals a turning point in the nuclear story, requiring fresh thinking about the recent evolution of nuclear danger, about the strategies appropriate for dealing with it and even about the very origin and nature of the entire dilemma posed by nuclear weapons.
In the aftermath of the recent talks in Washington between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Obama, it seems likely that for the time being — perhaps for the rest of this election season — there will be no attack on Iran's nuclear facilities by either the United States or Israel. Iran has agreed to meet with a six-power group led by the European Union's foreign affairs chief, Catherine Ashton, to discuss a diplomatic resolution to the dispute. Attention now shifts to those talks, which will be conducted in the shadow of severe economic sanctions imposed on Iran by the United Nations Security Council.
But there was another result, no less important. Time apparently was won for diplomacy, but a high price was paid. President Obama unequivocally embraced the use of military force, if diplomacy fails, as the ultimate recourse for preventing Iran from turning its nuclear fuel enrichment program into a nuclear weapons program. The president left no ambiguity. He said that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "unacceptable," and he committed the full prestige of the United States to preventing it. "Iran's leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment," he told AIPAC, the right-wing lobby that supports the policies of Israel's Likud government. "I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." This bridge-burning declaration was fateful. At a stroke, it removed from consideration the nuclear live-and-let-live policies the United States practiced throughout the cold war toward the Soviet Union and other nuclear powers, including China.
In addition, Obama specified war as the means for guaranteeing his objective. He told AIPAC, "As I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests." For extra clarity, he said, "I do not bluff."
What immediately strikes one about the shape of this policy evolution is how sharply the choice of "options" has been narrowed. Obama has repeatedly said that "all options are on the table," meaning that force may be used. Yet other options, starting with containment, were dropping off the table one after another. By the time Netanyahu departed, Obama seemed to have only two options left: should negotiations fail, will the United States strike Iran now or later? Will it strike once Iran has crossed a certain "red line" or only after it has crossed a slightly different red line?
How did this shrinkage occur? How has the president allowed himself to be restricted to variations on the theme of who should launch the attack and when? Domestic politics is one reason. The choice of AIPAC as the venue for Obama's declaration was telling. Before Netanyahu's state visit, Israeli officials had been using interviews with American journalists to deliver a threatening message. They suggested that if the United States did not attack Iran, Israel would — and soon, even without American concurrence. Israeli officials even suggested a timeline for the attack. The defense minister, Ehud Barak, told the New York Times he feared that in about a year Iran would enter an "immunity zone," after which an Israeli attack could no longer be successful in rolling back Iran's nuclear program; therefore the attack must come sooner than that. By implication, the United States would have to attack within the year if it wished to stop Israel from acting unilaterally, with all the adverse regional and global consequences that would follow.
There were, it is true, reasons to doubt that Israel's commitment to attack was firm. Some of the officials making the threats had made them before. For instance, in 2010 they had told Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic that the deadline for a possible attack was March 2011. But of course that never materialized. More recently Goldberg has suggested that the Israeli threats were "huge gusts of words." It seemed possible, therefore, that the Israeli policy was not that Israel attack Iran but that the United States attack Iran, and that the threats of Israeli attack were designed to produce this result — to inveigle the United States onto a one-way highway to war in a vehicle with no reverse gear.
And Israel's clout, amplified as it is by Republican support for a militarized policy, is enough to render such an ambition realistic. It's been the rule in American politics for more than a half-century that Democratic presidents, no matter how warlike, are under permanent suspicion of being "soft" on one enemy or another. The Israel lobby and its allies, including some of those on the presidential campaign trail, took up this cry against Obama. The president's re-election is clearly one of the stakes on the table in the Iranian crisis. On the one hand, he wants to avoid looking "weak." On the other hand, he wants to avoid a war in the near term, which would have disastrous consequences for his re-election. The deal that was reached — no war now, with a vow of war later if negotiations fail — threaded this needle.
Yet currents deeper than contemporary political calculation are also at work. A clue to these is the remarkable, unexpected similarity, noted by many observers, 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.
As Tom Engelhardt has pointed out at TomDispatch.com, Obama is an even purer exponent of this policy than was Bush. For whereas Bush was at pains, however implausibly, to trace a connection between the offending country (in his case, Iraq) and the direct defense of the United States (even resorting to the outlandish claim that Iraqi drones might attack American soil), Obama summons up no such immediate threats and relies unreservedly on the overall nonproliferation argument as his basis for war. We can hear him striking this note in a recent interview he gave Goldberg, who asked the president whether it would be necessary to make war on Iran even if Israel weren't in the picture. Obama's answer was affirmative: nonproliferation objectives alone were sufficient. In his AIPAC speech he explained, "A nuclear-armed Iran would thoroughly undermine the nonproliferation regime that we've done so much to build."
Bush accompanied his policy on Iraq with a great deal of neo-imperialist rhetoric that is absent from Obama's statements, but the fundamentals have been the same — a militarization of disarmament leading to a policy of what could be called disarmament wars. Disarmament wars threaten or occur when force becomes the chosen instrument for preventing proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Yet to conclude that Obama merely inherited this policy from Bush would be too simple, for Bush, in spite of all his preoccupation with 9/11, was not its originator, either. That distinction goes to Bill Clinton, who in a widely forgotten episode went to the brink of war in 1993 to prevent North Korea from reprocessing plutonium for nuclear weapons. All the elements familiar to us from the Iraq and Iran crises were present: a country that threatens to go nuclear (and did so in 2006), international sanctions pursuant to UN resolutions, quarrels with International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, escalating pressure from a US-led "international community," threats of force, risk of large-scale war and, finally, last-ditch diplomatic efforts. The diplomacy, which proved successful, was undertaken by former President Jimmy Carter, who inserted himself into the negotiations at the final moment, traveling to North Korea and brokering a deal. But before that happened, the Clinton administration gave serious consideration to an array of large-scale military attacks, called the "Osirak option," after the 1981 Israeli attack on a nuclear reactor in Iraq. Inasmuch as there was uncertainty even at that early date about whether North Korea already might possess nuclear weapons, the potential war could have been a nuclear war.