So, in keeping with my recent habit of only posting about interesting Middle East related news items, here's something that's been in the headlines recently: Iran's nuclear program.

Most experts seem to concur that Iranian enrichment activities put them 1-3 years away from developing a nuclear weapon. It would be a small, Hiroshima-type fission bomb. After that they will have the capability to continue producing similar weapons at a rate of one every couple years or so, unless they continue to add enrichment capacity, which is of course possible. They also have ballistic missiles which could deliver a nuclear warhead to a range of 2500-3000 km, with more capable missiles apparently under development.

The Obama administration, like the Bush administration, seems to want to put a stop to this. The tool to be used is economic sanctions. Problem is, no-one seems able to get any serious sanctions rolling. The Russians and Chinese (who are both permanent UN Security Council seat holders and also trade partners to Iran) will need to be on board for any sanctions to have much punch, but they aren't willing to support severe sanctions even though they have warmed (slightly) to the general idea recently. Theoretically more severe sanctions could be enacted without them but any such sanctions would have a gaping hole right through the middle of them. Meanwhile Tehran is apparently willing to suffer through whatever sanctions we put into place, which underlines the fundamental truth that sanctions advocates don't seem to understand: Iran considers it's nuclear program crucial to it's security and regional strategic interests, and also considers it a symbol of Iranian strength and independence, and isn't going to give it up no matter what sanctions we put on them. Knuckling under like that would undermine the Iranian government's image, whereas remaining defiant and carrying on undeterred by Western sanctions will enhance it. Sanctions will also probably help the Iranian government more than hurt it in domestic terms, by reinforcing the idea that Iran as a country is under attack by hateful foreign powers (which bolsters the regimes legitimacy and lets it crack down on opposition more harshly).

Then there is the possibility of a military attack against Iranian nuclear facilities. The two countries that might potentially do this are the US and Israel. I doubt very much that the US would do it, Israel is a much more likely candidate. Although they would need tacit US permission, since Israeli planes would have to fly through US-controlled airspace over Iraq on their way to and from targets in Iran. In either case, the political consequences would be severe. Iran has the capability to attack, disrupt, and temporarily halt oil tanker traffic in and out of the Persian Gulf, which would obviously cause some real problems. Israel can also expect to have to deal with retaliatory attacks from Hizballah (which is well-armed with Iranian- and Syrian-supplied missiles, now possibly including Scud ballistic missiles), and maybe Hamas too, if they strike at Iranian nuclear facilities.

My own attitude is that, objectionable as their political system and current government may be, Iran is a sovereign nation and if they really won't be dissuaded diplomatically from developing nuclear weapons, then we ought to go ahead and let them have them. Even if a hard-hitting sanctions package could be put together, which it can't, it would not stop the Iranian nuclear program and in fact would do the regime a political favor. Military strikes are a terrible idea for various reasons. I don't buy into the "mad mullahs" theory of Iranian political decision-making, which holds that because the country's leaders are religious figures, they are unpredictable and possibly deranged fanatics who cannot be expected to show any rational tendencies or self-preservation instincts, and thus will launch nuclear weapons at Israel ASAP just because they think God told them to. A serious examination of Khamenei's decision-making track record (something 99% of media figures and politicians who speak out on this issue have never made) reveals that he is in fact perfectly willing and able to subordinate religious considerations to practical ones, e.g. in the way Iran improved it's relations with Gulf states in the 1990s. He and the other high-ups are perfectly aware that using nuclear weapons against Israel would be the end of their regime and would in fact lead to terrible things for their country as a whole. So let them have their handful of low-yield bombs.

What do you all think?