Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Op-Eds

News Opinion Op-Eds

The sabotage strategy for containing Iran

Not long ago, an astute reader noted that it has been nearly two years since I wrote in a column that "most experts now estimate that Iran needs about 18 months to complete a nuclear device and a missile to carry it."

His point — that those estimates were way off — was a good one, especially since experts are still estimating that Iran is 18 months away from being able to build a nuclear weapon.

So what gives? Why does Iran always seem to be about 18 months away from a nuclear bomb, at least in the eyes of U.S. officials?

For starters, estimates are only estimates. It's hard to get a fix on the state of Iran's research when Tehran refuses to allow full access for international inspectors to its military facilities.

The experts cite two other factors for why their forecasts were so far off. One is that Iran's leaders seem not to have actually decided to build nuclear weapons; for the moment, they appear to prefer being a potential nuclear power to actually owning the weapons.

The other factor is sabotage. Those estimates of 18 months were based on what Iran could accomplish if all went well in its nuclear facilities. "But all never has gone well, and all will continue to not go well," a U.S. official told me recently.

Israel'svice prime minister, Moshe Yaalon, put it more bluntly last week. "All sorts of things are happening" in Iran, he told Israel's Army Radio. "Sometimes there are explosions. Sometimes there are worms there, [computer] viruses — all kinds of things like that."

Neither the United States nor Israel admits being behind a sabotage campaign that has made Iran's nuclear centrifuges unreliable, its computer software buggy and its precision steel defective. And the Obama administration has condemned the assassination plots, presumably the work of Israel, that have killed at least four Iranian nuclear scientists. But both Israeli and American officials predict that more sabotage is to come.

Oddly enough, all that sabotage may turn out to be the sturdy handmaiden of diplomacy — and an alternative to all-out war.

This month, Iran and six of the world's major powers, including the United States, are scheduled to resume negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program. The Obama administration hopes that the pressures of sabotage, military threats and economic sanctions — including a European embargo on Iranian oil that takes effect July 1 — will prompt Iran to accept fuller international inspections of its facilities and limits on its nuclear enrichment.

President Barack Obama and others have warned that this may be the last chance for diplomacy to avert military action.

And there is considerable sentiment against a war. Military officers in both the United States and Israel have warned that airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, while they might delay Tehran's ambitions, wouldn't end the threat, and they could prompt Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to order a full-scale commitment to nuclear weapons.

Of course, negotiations aren't likely to be a quick fix either.

An international agreement to stop Iran's nuclear work, reduce its stocks of uranium and set up an international inspection regime would likely take years to negotiate. Iranians are deeply suspicious of U.S. intentions — and not without reason, since many American leaders have called for regime change in Tehran.

Meanwhile, Israel has insisted that it only has months to wait, not years — because it worries about Iran building enough defenses around its nuclear facilities to create what Defense Minister Ehud Barak calls a "zone of immunity" against attack.

What's the alternative? Once again, it's likely to come back to sabotage: a middle option between all-out war and acceding to continued progress toward a nuclear Iran.

In a recent article, Michael O'Hanlon and Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution proposed relying on sabotage as part of a strategy they dub "constriction."

"Essentially, we would continue to delay and minimize the scale of Iran's nuclear program as we have been doing through sanctions and other means," they wrote in The Washington Post. "We would keep doing this indefinitely, even if Iran gets a nuclear weapon."

"There is little near-term prospect of reaching an agreement with Iran. But we can pursue the same goal with other means," they argued. "Non-military methods have already slowed Iran's nuclear program by two to three years. ... That is every bit as much as we could hope to slow Iran with an airstrike campaign."

The goal would be to find a way to freeze Iran's nuclear work where it stands — which means that on Groundhog Day two years from now, I just might be writing another column to explain why Tehran is still, oh, about 18 months from a nuclear weapon.

Doyle McManus is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, where this article originally appeared. His email is doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Keep talking with Iran

    Keep talking with Iran

    The announcement today that the U.S. and Iran have agreed to extend talks over Tehran's disputed nuclear program is far short of what we might have hoped for. But the extension can't be counted as a failure either. If the goal is to keep up the pressure on Iran's leaders to reach a deal, keeping...

  • Five questions for Cardin

    Five questions for Cardin

    I'd like to ask five questions of Sen. Ben Cardin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and others who support congressional review of any final U.S. nuclear agreement with Iran ("Cardin lands complicated deal with GOP, Obama on Iran," April 14):

  • A bad deal with Iran is worse than war

    A bad deal with Iran is worse than war

    Salah al-Mukhtar, a Jordanian columnist who writes for the Amman News, wrote the following reaction to the framework agreement reached between Iran and the major powers over its disputed nuclear program:

  • Iran can't be trusted to keep its word

    Iran can't be trusted to keep its word

    Your recent editorial on the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks is another indication that the liberal media does not understand that negotiating with Iran from the position of weakness is a disaster ("Negotiating with Iran," April 3).

  • Congress should not kill Iran deal

    Congress should not kill Iran deal

    South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham got it right on Sunday when he said the framework accord between Iran and the major world powers on Tehran's disputed nuclear program is probably the best deal the Obama administration could have gotten. Of course, he didn't mean it as a compliment...

  • Congress should not dismiss Iran deal

    Congress should not dismiss Iran deal

    Before those opposed to the recent deal with Iran settle on their opposition ("Negotiating with Iran," April 5), I would hope they consider the following.

  • Iran never threatened to 'wipe Israel off the map'

    Iran never threatened to 'wipe Israel off the map'

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel will not accept any agreement that allows a country that vows to annihilate his nation to develop nuclear weapons.

  • Iran has stuck by its side of the interim deal

    Iran has stuck by its side of the interim deal

    I have rarely read a letter with so many falsehoods as the individual who recently asserted that the Iranians "have lied about working toward a nuke, where their facilities are, how any places, people and pieces of equipment they have working on projects. More importantly, they declare peaceful...

Comments
Loading

77°