Negotiations — or war with Iran? - Tribune-Review

By Pat Buchanan

Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2012, 8:55 p.m.
Updated 5 hours ago

"It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven't had such discussions," said Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of State in the Bush administration, of reports the Obama White House has agreed to one-on-one talks with Tehran over its nuclear program.

Sen. Lindsey Graham dissented Sunday: "I think the time for talking is over. ... We talk, they enrich. It needs to stop. We need to have red lines coordinated with Israel and end this before it gets out of hand."

Clearly, Graham believes an ultimatum, followed by an attack if Iran denies us "access to their nuclear program," is the way to "end this." What kind of attack?

According to David Rothkopf, writing in Foreign Policy magazine, U.S. and Israeli military authorities are discussing a joint attack, and the idea getting the most traction is "a U.S.-Israeli surgical strike targeting Iranian enrichment facilities."

"The strike might take only 'a couple of hours' in the best case and only would involve 'a day or two' overall, the source said, and would be conducted by air, using primarily bombers and drone support."

"One advocate asserts it would be a 'transformative outcome: saving Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, reanimating the peace process, securing the (Persian) Gulf, sending an unequivocal message to Russia and China, and assuring American ascendancy in the region for a decade to come,'" writes Rothkopf.

Thus, according to Rothkopf and his source, a U.S. attack on Iran's enrichment facilities would produce the same glorious benefits we were promised if only we would invade and occupy Iraq in 2003.

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates has another view. "The results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could ... prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world." What consequences might Gates have in mind?

Iran might mine the Persian Gulf, sending ships to the bottom, halting traffic, doubling the price of oil and plunging Europe into the economic abyss. U.S. ships might face swarm attacks from Iranian speedboats. Iran could send its submarines out and fire its anti-ship missiles to sink a U.S. warship. Iranian missile attacks on U.S. bases in Bahrain and the gulf region could ignite an all-out air and sea war.

And if after months we had smashed Iran, would the regime give way to a pro-Western democracy? Or would the result in Iran look like what exists today in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan?

Gates is right that the consequences could be catastrophic. So why are we even talking about war?

The sanctions are working. The Iranian economy is sinking into recession, oil revenues have fallen and hard currency reserves are being depleted. While Iran is enriching uranium to 20 percent, it has not enriched to weapons grade. Ayatollah Khamenei has called nuclear weapons anti-Islamic and the U.S. intelligence community says Iran has no nuclear bomb program.

America's position as of today: We do not want war with Iran, but will tolerate no Iranian bomb. Iran's official position: We want no bomb and are willing to negotiate, but we have a right to have a peaceful nuclear program. Can we find no common ground here?

Before we go to war, let us find out, in face-to-face talks if need be, if we really have to go to war.

Pat Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?"

You must be signed in to add comments

To comment, click the Sign in or sign up at the very top of this page.

There are currently no comments for this story.
Subscribe today & get the all digital eTRIB! Click here for our subscription offers.