Iran Bombing

So we have bombed Iran and severely limited their ability to create a nuclear weapon. Now what?

Before beginning this post, I read a number of articles about the decision to execute the plan, about the evidence for and against the premise that Iran was "weeks away" from achieving the capability to create a nuclear bomb, and the possible ramifications of our intervention, militarily, at this time.

Like most Americans, those opinions were overwhelmingly in favor of the President's decisive action, while also expressing admiration for our military's impressive ability to execute such an elaborate plan without (apparently) the Iranians knowing what was imminent. There were even decoy planes!

And, while we know that Iran will respond in some way, perhaps by missile attacks on the various American bases in the area as was already done, or by strangling the flow of oil through the Straight of Hormuz, or simply by activating its proxies to engage in small, but deadly assaults on Americans, tourists, military personnel, business interests, etc, we hope that both sides are content with "appropriate" responses, as opposed to ones which escalate the situation.

Of course, how Americans and our president define "appropriate" on the part of Iran, and then by us should one of their efforts result in the loss of American life, is hardly predictable.

Unfortunately, that is a big problem, the idea that America, in general, and Trump in particular, have a say in how Iran reacts to being attacked. Certainly, if America was the victim of an unprovoked air raid on our infrastructure, we would not give a hoot how our enemies graded our response, yet we maintain the assumption that we have a right to evaluate Iran's response as appropriate or not.

This, of course, is nothing new. America has been arrogant in our relations with our friends and rivals for decades, and even more so since Trump's appearance on the political scene.

Still, again, just to be clear, President Trump accomplished something that every president since Reagan has wanted to do, but did not, and not because they were concerned about achieving the goal of hampering or destroying Iran's nuclear weapon goals, but because they were worried about what might have happened afterwards. 

Whether Trump calculated that Iran was at its weakest after the last week of missile strikes by Israel, as well as the dozens of assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, in addition to the fall of the Assad government in Syria, which created the perfect opportunity to strike, or whether he believes that "strength through superior power" is the only mantra that a country which possesses the greatest military on the planet should follow, he didn't hesitate, nor did he "run it up the flagpole" for consent or advice by informing our allies, or the other side of the aisle (there is some evidence that a few GOP Congressmen were informed).

Or perhaps because his birthday bash was overshadowed by the five million or so No Kings" protests which occurred the same day, and so he approved the attack to win back the narrative. 

Whatever the reason, he acted strongly, with the certainty that he was right, no doubt.

Clearly a trait which Americans respect, and, to be honest, one which I wish more Democrats would emulate.

But was he right?

The premise for our military action is that Iran, should they develop a nuclear weapon, will immediately use it against the West, most likely Israel, but also, possibly, the Great Satan, America.

We have been told this for decades, so much so that it is a given among most people, those with the knowledge of Iranian thinking and the rest of us who hear it over and over and over again.

And why wouldn't we believe it when it is simple enough to google speeches by the various Iranian mullahs and leaders who call for the destruction of Israel and America, and easy enough to find videos of Iranians burning American flags while chanting death to America as they march in the streets.

Of course, we are also told that North Korea would use their nuclear weapons if provoked, as they are certainly no friend of the West. And, the country with the largest number of nuclear warheads, Russia, has often threatened the use of their arsenal if certain events occur. Plus, the always-at-each-other countries of India and Pakistan have nuclear capability, yet have not used them against each other, despite their constant bickering and aggression towards each other.

https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals

And, finally, we have the only country in history to have actually deployed a nuclear weapon on a civilian target, twice, the United States of America.

Would Iran actually use their weapon if they develop one? It is clearly an act which would result in their own destruction. Still, I am in no position to know for sure. Perhaps the end of the world would work for them as they may sincerely believe that something akin to the rapture would result in their salvation. But that is not dissimilar to some evangelicals who seem all to eager for the end times, some who actually believe that Trump is here to accomplish such an event.

The question then is, would the concept of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, that has, allegedly, kept America and Russia from lobbing warheads at each others' cities, not be in effect for Iran? And if so, why not?

There is a Sting song, called "Russians" in which he hopes that deploying a nuclear weapon would be "such an ignorant thing to do, if the Russians love their children too". 

Do we not believe that Iranians love their children any less than the Russians, or Israelis, or those of us who live in America?

We just can't take that chance, is the most common response to such a query. Fortunately, we don't apply that same assumption to the leaders of other countries that fund terrorism around the world, North Korea and Russia to name two. If so, we might have already tested the MAD concept by now.

Additionally, did we actually "obliterate" their ability to create a nuclear weapon, as the president stated in his late night address? 

As of this post, there has not been any radioactivity detected in the areas around the sites which we bombed. Does that mean the enriched plutonium was moved in anticipation of the attack? If nothing else, after a week of air attacks by Israel, there is some sense to thinking that Iran might have moved the fruits of their efforts, along with the scientists who brought them those results. 

Or perhaps they have one, or more, other sites at which their nuclear program has been in development. After all, just because the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had been allowed to inspect the facilities at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, doesn't mean the Iranians (who we distrust, correct), don't have another site.

Also, I read a really interesting and enlightening article about the advance of concrete over the past 30 years, specifically in response to the creation of the kind of "bunker busting" bombs used in the recent attack. In a nutshell, as the ability of these bombs to penetrate and destroy underground facilities increased, so did the recipes for concrete to withstand such bombs. In a classic, tit for tat, after each advancement on one side of the equation there was a response to negate it on the other side.

Did Iran have the latest and greatest concrete in place to withstand our current iteration of these large and powerful bombs? If so, and despite the obvious destruction at the sites, it may not take as much time to bring those sites back online, if the actual hardware was not reached.

Regardless of whether the sites were obliterated, badly damaged, or mostly spared due to the advancements in concrete, there will be, must be, negotiations between Iran and the US. 

But to honest, why should either party believe the other, trust the other to negotiate faithfully. To me, that is the big hole in Trump's approach, to frankly, any subject. He expects fear to be the ultimate motivator, and while, I don't necessarily blame him as it has worked for him, most of his life, and certainly works for him in regards to taking over the GOP, there is a limit to how far such a strategy will take you. And, ultimately, a limit to what can be accomplished as, the very first reaction that most people have to being told no, as the parent of any two year old knows, is to do it anyway, to resist. 

So, while it is certainly debatable to believe that an atomic non-proliferation agreement with Iran would be adhered to by Iran, at least we knew of the three sites we bombed because of previous diplomacy.

Now that we have attacked them unilaterally, what chance is there that any future agreement can be reached, or followed if signed. And, if they are able to achieve the ability to create a nuclear weapon in six months or six years, will we have a means towards convincing them to abide by the MAD philosophy, or will they actually use their weapon to enact revenge for the past weeks attacks on their sovereignty. 

At that point, then, will, just bomb them again, be our only option? 

After all, the real purpose of having a nuclear weapon is deterrence, the threat that it would be used if provoked. Isn't that why we maintain thousands of nuclear warheads, to send the message that we can end anyone (and everyone, sadly) if we are pushed? 

What is really ironic is that America has not deployed any nuclear weapons since WW2, even though we were attacked on 9/11. Does that simple fact make our stores of these powerful means of mass destruction a paper tiger? Or, are we just smart enough to know that a nuclear war has no winners. (Although, to be honest, I have little faith that Trump believes this axiom.)   

Finally, I struggle with the idea that America has the right to tell Iran that it can't have a nuclear program, for energy or self defense. We certainly would not tolerate any country telling us what forms of energy to create, what weapons to store, what military capabilities to enhance, yet presume the right to dictate to Iran. 

Why? 

Should Iran develop a nuclear weapon, and use it on Israel, as everyone fears, the consequence would be incomprehensible. Perhaps lead to a nuclear war. Devastation all around, although that destruction would primarily be the result of the USA and Russia launching their warheads.

It would be up to the leaders of America and Russia to decide to take a beat, or reject the tenets of MAD.

Considering that not that long ago, Trump berated Zelensky in the Oval Office, accusing his actions as the potential for a World War would it be ironic, or just typical of an act inspired by power and pride and hatred, should last weekend's attack on Iran prove to be the catalyst to just such horror. 

We can only hope that all three sides, Israel, Iran and America choose the least obvious, most common response to being attacked and hated.

Can you say Love thy neighbor as thyself?