• TechnologyInnovator
• EnterpriseInnovator
• SecurityInnovator
• WirelessInnovator 

• NextInnovator(at)Live.com
• No spam, subscription newsletters, solicitations, or attachments please!
• Attn: Harold Abraham, Chief Innovator

• Cyberwarfare Headline News
• Biometrics & Surveillance Headline News
• Terrorism Headline News
• Guerrilla Warfare Headline News
• Nuclear Strategy Headline News
• WMD Headline News

• Stratfor Geopolitical Report
• Stratfor Daily Podcast
• Computerworld Security Blog
• eWeek Security Blog
• Information Security
• Infoworld Zero Day Security
• Cheap Hack: Larry Seltzer's New Blog
• McAfee Avert Labs Blog
• Mike Rothman's Blog
• Network Computing Daily Blog
• NetworkWorld, Buzzblog
• Security Fix, Brian Krebs
• ZeroDay, Ryan Naraine

• Over the River
• eMarketer 
• TechnologyPundits
• Security Insights Blog 
• McAfee AudioParasitics
• Strand Consult
• Ovum
• The Eye For Innovation
• Rethink Research
• Innovation Insights
• Innoblog
• Strategy and Innovation
• The Gadgeteer
• Handheld Speech
• Ghost City

 

As Tehran Marches Closer to the Nuclear Club, Its Neighbors Anxiously Await the World Response

Iran’s intensifying nuclear ambition has become a critical concern to policymakers around the world, not only to its Gulf neighbors and Israel which lie within range of Tehran’s current missile reach, but also to the United States and Europe, which view a nuclear Iran with trepidation.

With the recent change of helm in Washington, and President Obama’s new diplomatic initiative to re-engage Tehran in dialogue by the end of this year in the hope of dissuading it from joining the nuclear club, many hoped Iran’s determined effort to cross the nuclear chasm could be slowed, and perhaps reversed. But in response to the White House’s extended olive branch, Tehran followed down the path blazed earlier this year by North Korea, which boldly test-fired a long-range missile on April 5 in the face of global condemnation. Pyongyang claimed to have successfully launched a Unha-2 rocket carrying the Kwangmyongsong-2 communications satellite into orbit, but Western officials believe it was in fact another test launch of the long-range Taepodong-2 ballistic missile.

Just six weeks later, on May 20th, Tehran announced it had successfully tested a new medium-range, two-stage solid-fuel missile, the Sejil-2, capable of delivering a nuclear payload 2,500 km – far enough to threaten not just Israel, which views a nuclear Iran as an existential threat, but also American forces deployed across the Middle East and Persian Gulf region, as well as parts of Europe. Like the DPRK a month earlier, Tehran sent its own missile message to the Obama Administration, rebuffing its engagement effort and a reaffirming its determination to develop its own nuclear deterrent, and thus become immune to the risk of externally-imposed regime change of the sort that quickly toppled Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein six years ago.

Israel responded with its own symbolic counter-statement to Iran: the Israeli Air Force conducted large-scale air exercises, with Iran among its several designated targets. And on Capitol Hill, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen testified on May 21 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he was “one who believes that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is calamitous for the region and for the world,” and that a nuclear-armed Iran “generates neighbors who feel exposed, deficient and then develop or buy the capability themselves. The downside, potentially, is absolutely disastrous.” He added that the world community must “come together to arrest this growth or the long-term downside for the people in the world is really, really tragic and drastic.”

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed Admiral Mullen’s pessimism, telling the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee a day earlier that a “nuclear-armed Iran with a deliverable weapons system is going to spark an arms race in the Middle East and the greater region,” and reminding the Senators that President Obama had “made it clear that he is committed to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons with all of the consequences that that would entail.” In a silver lining, she described the emergence of an “alliance which has come together of Israel and many of her Arab neighbors against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons,” and she believes this alignment of strategic interests among traditional foes presents “an opportunity that will enable us both to move forward with our engagement regarding Iran and our commitment to pursue diplomacy and to build a multilateral coalition.”

I spoke with Professor James Russell, Co-Director of the Center for Contemporary Conflict and a Professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, and a prolific author and renown expert on Middle East and Persian Gulf security. Professor Russell observes that “Iran’s Gulf neighbors are extremely concerned that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon,” and as a consequence, “we can expect that they will take steps to ensure that Iran cannot use its nuclear superiority to create a coercive bargaining framework designed to ensure Iran’s regional military and political ascendance.”

On whether a regional arms race of the sort predicted by Secretary Clinton will result, Russell said he was “reluctant to predict that regional reactions will take the form of a nuclear arms race, but we can expect that states will take corresponding steps to ensure their security. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the region’s renewed interest in nuclear power has occurred as Iran is demonstrating apparent technical progress in its own enrichment program.” Russell added that “we can expect states to take a variety of steps in response Iran crossing the nuclear threshold. I wouldn’t rule anything out. But I’d also say that not all the states will seek a nuclear weapon.” Russell explained that America’s Gulf allies “have implied security commitments from the United States in the form of defense cooperation agreements that form the legal basis for the forward deployed presence in the Gulf,” and that “in those states that are host to significant numbers of US troops, the United States has repeatedly stated that it will use all means at its disposal to protect its troops. The umbrella is thus two-fold: it extends to the states with whom we have defense cooperation agreements as well as to those states that host U.S. forces. This includes such countries as Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Oman, and – most recently – Iraq. We have commitments conveyed in other ways to Saudi Arabia.”

On why Tehran is pursuing the bomb, Russell noted this remains a “source of genuine disagreement, which is really an argument between different theoretical approaches to international relations.” He explained that the realist approach, which reflects his view, argues “that Iran is a status quo regional power that is taking rational steps to protect itself and further its influence over regional rivals.” But “others argue that Iran is motivated by an ideology and religious fervor stemming from the Islamic revolution.” Russell believes that Iran’s nuclear ambition is motivated “mostly from its analysis of its security dilemma. Iran feels both threatened by the U.S. military presence and the U.S. relationships with its regional rivals in the Gulf and is looking for ways to counter this threat while simultaneously searching for ways to increase its leverage in the regional balance of power.”

As an adherent of the realist school of international relations, Russell said he is “less drawn to cultural and religious factors in explaining regional tensions and conflict. Clearly, however, in the Gulf region, religious and ideological differences form part of the narrative that frames the mutual suspicion between Iran and Sunni states of the Arabian peninsula.” In his view, “Iran’s relationships with Hizbollah and Hamas are examples of a realist-oriented regional power that seeks to use a variety of different levers to enhance its power and influence over regional rivals. Hamas, for example, has little ideological or religious connection with Iran. It is purely a tactical alliance of convenience for both parties.”

Just how close Iran is to becoming a nuclear weapons state remains difficult to ascertain. Russell comments that “it seems clear that Iran eventually will achieve the ability to build a nuclear power infrastructure that includes an indigenous uranium enrichment capability. They are marching towards this objective.” But “as for weaponizing the program, that’s a more difficult call in terms of timelines – but there is again enough circumstantial evidence to suggest their intent to weaponize.” But for the moment, it appears Iran has yet to cross the nuclear chasm: “I don’t believe they have reached the point yet where they could declare ‘virtual’ arsenal,” and that Iran already has a weapon, but has not yet tested it. And while some observers suggest America’s pre-emptive actions in Iraq, overthrowing Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein, has fueled Iran’s nuclear ambition, Russell points out that “Iran’s interest in nuclear power goes back to the 1970s,” and that “Ayatollah Khomeini re-started the program in the mid-1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.” Russell thus believes we “must see Iran’s interest in nuclear issues as part of an historic continuum.”

On the potential emergence of an Israel-Arab alliance, or at least an alignment of strategic interests in response to a nuclear Iran, Russell noted that “there is now speculation to this effect – that a Saudi/Egyptian/Jordanian rapprochement with Israel is being encouraged by the prospect of a nuclear Iran. Some even believe that these states would tacitly support Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.” But while such a rapprochement  may be a diplomatic silver lining to the darker nuclear cloud hanging over the region, Russell cautions that we should not be overly optimistic at this juncture. “My view is that the world is closer than it thinks an escalation spiral that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This is an outcome I hope never happens. It would be a global catastrophe.”

As Russell explained, “Israel is committed to maintaining its nuclear monopoly and will tolerate no existential threat to the state – or at least, that’s what the leadership keeps saying. Iran appears implacably committed to its right to enrichment and frankly has a history that draws into question its peaceful intentions. Thus you have two parties with two objectives that are in no way symmetrical and neither shows any inclination to negotiate away their objective. If Israel attacks Iran, we face the prospect of a wider regional war that could involve non-state actors, non-conventional weapons, and terrorist-type attacks. It’s a lethal mix and one that could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States.” Thus, concludes Professor Russell, “I believe the region is marching towards a confrontation that somehow must be defused by the U.S.”