IRAN: Writer says war won't stop nuclear program

The possibility of a United States or Israeli war to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions has been an obsession among foreign policy wonks, diplomats and journalists for some time.

Many Iran experts believe such a war would be a disaster that would fail to halt Iran's nuclear program. Michael Axworthy (pictured right) is one of them.

During the 1970s, the British author and former diplomat traveled to Iran many times while his parents lived and worked there. He joined the British foreign service in 1986, serving as a head of the Iran desk from 1998 to 2000. 

Over the last eight years he's been writing books and teaching about Iran in the United Kingdom. His latest book, "A History of Iran: Empire of the Mind," was released last month. It traces the country's history from its earliest days, emphasizing its religious, intellectual and cultural traditions.

Axworthy graciously agreed to an e-mail interview about Iran and its current confrontation with the West.  "The crisis is a result of the hostility that has persisted between the U.S. and Iran since the revolution of 1979 and the hostage crisis.

"But it has its roots in the U.S.-Iran relationship earlier than that, notably in U.S. support for the regime of the Shah in the 1960s and 1970s, and the coup attempted by the British and the CIA against Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953. The prime reason the clerical regime in Iran might want a nuclear weapon is as a deterrent to the U.S. regime-change policy."

LOS ANGELES TIMES: Is the U.S. going to launch a war against Iran?

MICHAEL AXWORTHY: I believe the costs to the U.S. of military action are too high, and that there have been  at least two effective rebellions against that idea within the U.S. system already — the most recent being the National Intelligence Report report last November, in which the U.S. intelligence community declared that Iran had not been pursuing a nuclear weapon program since 2003.

But if the U.S. and the wider international community are unable to stop the Iranian program (whether by warlike or peaceful means) then Israel could take action unilaterally.

LAT: What are some potential consequences of a war meant to target Iran's nuclear installations?

AXWORTHY: Iran would have a range of retaliatory options, include attacks on U.S. installations on the southern shore of the Persian Gulf, attacks on shipping in the Persian Gulf, and attacks against Israel. The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan could also change for the worse.

LAT: Could a war halt Iran's nuclear ambitions?

AXWORTHY: Military action could not destroy an Iranian nuclear weapon program. The program could easily be dispersed to widely separated, secret locations, that could not be seen from the air, and repositioned deep underground, so deep that even nuclear weapons might not destroy them even if their locations could be hit.

Even if damage were done, once the applied knowledge of how to enrich uranium has been acquired, it is impossible to prevent the activity going ahead, if the will to do so is there. Military action against Iran is more likely to persuade ordinary Iranians of the need for a nuclear deterrent than anything else.

LAT: Do you think Iran is trying to obtain nuclear weapons?

AXWORTHY: Important Iranian religious leaders have declared that nuclear weapons, and all weapons of mass destruction, are immoral and unacceptable, and this matters. We should take those statements seriously (not least because, during the Iran/Iraq war, Iran refrained from retaliating with chemical weapons when Saddam Hussein used those weapons against Iranian troops, and against civilians. Many Iranian veterans are still suffering the after-effects of those weapons).

The NIE concluded last November that Iran had not been pursuing a nuclear weapon program since 2003. But western governments have good reason to believe that at various points they have pursued a nuclear weapon program. The explanation for this apparent contradiction could be that the Iranian leadership has wanted to develop a capability, short of an actual weapon, that would still serve as a deterrent. In other words, to have all the elements ready to produce a weapon if necessary, but not the weapon itself. The only practical value of nuclear weapons is as a deterrent, as is well known.

LAT: How can the West curb Iran's nuclear ambitions without going to war?

AXWORTHY: Only by negotiation — direct, committed negotiation between the U.S. and Iran at an appropriately high political level, directed at a resolution of all outstanding disputes between Iran and the U.S.

LAT: What effects are sanctions currently having on Iran? Are they working?

AXWORTHY: Sanctions are having an effect on the Iranian economy, contributing to the high inflation and high unemployment that make miserable the lives of many Iranians (factors that were significant in 2005 in the election of Ahmadinejad). But sanctions are a blunt instrument, and whether they are working to produce the effects on Iranian government policy that the West hopes for is more uncertain.

The statement by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on June 3, restating Iran's commitment to its nuclear program and saying that Iran seeks only civil nuclear power and not a nuclear weapon, would seem to suggest otherwise. This policy has broad support within Iran, irrespective of other political divisions.

LAT: What would it take to get Iran to stop supporting militant groups in Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories and possibly Iraq?

AXWORTHY: A 'Grand Bargain' of the kind proposed by the Iranian government (and ignored by the U.S. government) in 2003. The proposal suggested talks toward a resolution of the nuclear dispute, and de facto Iranian recognition of Israel, in return for an end to the U.S. policy for regime change in Iran, and a normalization of relations between the U.S. and Iran. Note that 2003 is also the date at which the NIE concluded that work on the Iranian nuclear program stopped. Although Ahmadinejad came to power after that, his significance is often exaggerated (not least by himself) and the other elements in the leadership group are much the same as they were in 2003.

Incidentally, I would applaud the reports … showing that the picture of support from Iran for insurgent action against coalition troops in Iraq has been greatly exaggerated on the strength of very little evidence; and that the much greater destabilizing effect of action by foreign fighters and suicide bombers on the Sunni side, especially from Saudi Arabia but also from other countries in the region, has been scandalously neglected

LAT: How would you describe the state of Iranian society today?

AXWORTHY: That is a big question, and the Iranian people have a way of surprising pundits. I have mentioned the problems of inflation and unemployment already — there is also a serious drug problem, as a result of Iran's position on the drug highway from Afghanistan to Europe.

There seem in addition to be a number of trends at work — away from religion and toward nationalism in politics, though there is also a mood of disillusionment and nihilism among many young people after the failure of the reform project under the Khatami presidency of 1997-2005.

A more optimistic feature is the growing role of Iranian women in education and the job market — 65% of university entrants are women, and many of them go on to well-paid jobs, often earning more than their husbands.

LAT: What are the chances that Iranians themselves will bring about a change of Iran's policies

AXWORTHY: The ruling clique have become more adept at manipulating the electoral system, and it is hard to be too optimistic. But there is still genuine politics in Iran, and significant differences within the political class.

For example, the Majlis is now strongly conservative, but it has successfully resisted appointments and policies proposed by President Ahmadinejad at a number of important points. A range of judicious observers, from Paul Wolfowitz to the son of the last Shah, from the dissident Akbar Ganji to the Nobel prizewinner Shirin Ebadi, have urged against military action, in favor of allowing Iranians to develop freer, more representative government themselves, without outside interference.

— Borzou Daragahi in Beirut

P.S. The Los Angeles Times issues a free daily newsletter with the latest headlines from the Middle East. You can subscribe by registering at the website here, logging in here and clicking on the World: Mideast newsletter box here.

Comments

[Shalom Freedman]

Mr Axworthy underplays Iranian intentions and even rhetoric in regard to nuclear weapons. President Rafsanjani who some consider a moderate once said that Iran would survive a nuclear exchange with Israel, while threatening that Israel would not. How can one have a nuclear- exchange if one does not have nuclear- weapons?
It is not moreover only Israel and the U.S. which are wary of a nuclear Iran. In fact it is the Saudis, and other Gulf and Middle Eastern states who are most afraid of a nuclear Iran. They see Iran's expansive nature, hear its messianic jihadi rhetoric, above all know its behind- the- scenes interference on the ground.
A nuclear Iran is a game- changer for the Middle East and the world.
What people do not understand now and will understand in the future is that the Bush Administration's greatest foreign- policy failure was not in Iraq or Afghanistan but in its failure to prevent the coming into being of a nuclear Iran.
If President Obama also buys the lies and phony promises of the Iranians he too will contribute to the Disaster a nuclear Iran will eventually bring.

[Prof. Gerd Nonneman, IAIS, Exeter University]

Congratulations on the piece with Michael Axworthy - he's one of the best scholars of Iran out there ('Empire of the Mind' is a wonderful read, as well as sound scholarly history and an original 'take'); the interview brought out some key insights in good, crisp fashion!

The way he's introduced in the piece, though, it sounds a little as if he's at loose ends after an old career - so it may be worth mentioning that, quite to the contrary, he is just being appointed to a tenured post at the Institute of Arab & Islamic Studies (IAIS) at Exeter University (UK) - where he is right at the heart of a move to bolster the existing Persian/Iranian Studies programme from this year onwards.

[betz]

If the US and Israel want transparency with Iran then Israel needs to be transparent. The Iran issue is 100% Israeli.

All rules apply except to Israel ? Again ? Pure BS. Make Israel adhere to the standards that it and the US want to impose on Iran.

Israel refuses to sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty ,which Iran has done.

Israel refuses to allow IAEA inspections of their nuke facilities, which Iran has done.

Israel refuses to comply with any UN resolutions, which the US protects it from.

America's media silence about Israelis nuclear weapons and their lack of membership to the NPT while maintaining such harsh rhetoric with regard to Iran's nuclear program, which is legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member, is an example of the kind of outright double standard hypocrisy the United States has been following in its foreign policy.

And we try to get Iran -- an NPT member -- to stop enriching uranium and expect not to sound outright hypocritical?

Iran has every right to defend themselves against Israel. The IAEA in Israel ? The reaction would be spectacular and filled with claims of persecution and divine right.

It's absurd the pretense that Israel stands as the pathetic guardian against the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the ME. Israel is the biggest bully, destabilizing, warmongering, belligerent aggressor and needs to be dealt with before Tehran.

[Kevin]

Another excellent article and interview Mr Daragahi, thanks.

I would only add that should the US and/or Israel attack Iran, what would the rest of the 1.2 Billion Muslims around the globe think, especially in the light of how this country went to war with Iraq.

Josh Greenberge, you seem well informed on the matters that you write about. You should join the Army, go to Iraq and work your way up to general and implement the changes necessary. Reading “Art of War” and saying “some one said this’ and we should do that is not going to cut it.

Kevin

[August West]

Josh Greenberge asks what would have happened if we had nuked the area in which we thought bin Laden was hiding?

Answer: created millions more bin Ladens. Turned the rest of the world against us, including all our major allies. Convinced Iran and every other nation they had to get nukes of their own.

This is typical neocon drivel. Take a kernal of truth (world sympathy for the US following 9/11), and then stretch out all recognition to an inane conclusion.

We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora, until Bush and the neocons gave him a get-out-of-jail-free card so they could focus on Iraq and the neocons' self-delusional fantasies on spreading democracy, controlling oil, and protecting Israel. 4000+ US troops have paid with their lives for these fantasies.

But the neocons never learn. Learning, you see, involves admitting mistakes. Neocons never admit their mistakes, and are quite happy to see other American die for them.

Mr. Greenberge needs to stop drinking the neocon koolaid.

[tedson]

Hey Josh, We're not the only country that has nukes. Don't give Bush any ideas.

[Bijan]

Josh Greenberge:

You are a lunatic.

[ekbworldwide]

>> Josh Greenberge

Sheesh Josh - whose neo-con payroll on you on? I stopped reading at about the third paragraph...

I won't argue the righteousness of the use of the atomic bomb in WW II. Instead I'll just mention something - that I'm sure you did not - one reason the Japanese were bombed is that they weren't (and they still aren't) Causacian.

In WW II The Japanese and the Germans were the enemy. And once the war was over - peace didn't last. A gigantic military-business infracture had been created. Enter the Cold War - and money could flow back into it. The Russians and "communism" became a global threat. There was "short" war in Korea, and a far longer and costler American war in Vietnam. Recently - of course - "Arabs" and "Muslims" became the enemy. And there was The Gulf War I and now The Gulf War II.

If you convince yourself that the devil is under your bed - it doesn't matter if he is or not.

Human beings are tribal. Sure we have jeans, pizza chains, SUVs, wide screen TVs - but we are as tribal as small group of people living in New Guiena without all the modern amenities.

The US continutes it's hostile form of non-diplomacy and political figures such as Condi Rice make public statements that talking to Iran is quote "pointless" unquote making things only worse.

Diplomacy works quietly. Will it stop Iran from getting nuclear technology? Probably not. But air strikes - or even a war won't either.

I'm a real person - who just wrote all that. I don't get paid by a "think tank" (sic) to spam comments.

ekbworldwide

[Josh Greenberger]

When A Superpower Barks But Doesn't Bite

Whoever coined the phrase "The more things change, the more they stay the same," couldn't have been thinking of modern warfare. When it comes to 21st Century military might, it seems, the more powerful a country gets, the less fear other countries have of it.

That two bombs can bring an end to a long war that had already killed 70 million people, may be a little hard to imagine. But when the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs (nicknamed "Little Boy" and "Fat Man") on Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (August 9, 1945), Japan surrendered in only 6 days. What's more, the shock of the bombs generated such strong public sentiments against nuclear weapons that Japan eventually adopted the "Three Non-Nuclear Principles;" The tenets state, "Japan shall neither possess nor manufacture nuclear weapons, nor shall it permit their introduction into Japanese territory."

It's unfortunate that it took an additional 100,000 deaths to end World War II. But with tens of millions already dead, it would not be an exaggeration to say that millions more might have died otherwise.

At that time, the U.S. had no nuclear stockpiles. We had tested our first nuclear weapon less than a month before the Japan bombings. The bombs were small, by today's standards; Hiroshima's approximately 15 kt, Nagasaki's approximately 21 kt. (1 kt [kiloton] has the explosive power of a thousand tons of dynamite.)

The U.S currently has over 9,000 nuclear warheads, of which almost 6,000 are fully active. Of these, over 400 are ballistic missiles with 475 kt warheads, each. To put it simply, we have enough explosive power to wipe every country off the face of the earth several times over.

There's little question that, weaponry wise, we've grown by leaps and bounds. But has our ability to fend off attacks or end a conflict with a strategic attack grown in the same proportion? That's questionable.

On October 7, 2001, American and British forces began aerial bombings of Afghanistan, named "Operation Enduring Freedom," targeting the Taliban and al-Qaeda. This was in response to, and almost a month after, 9/11.

After a highly publicized deployment, the first significant U.S. combat troops of nearly 1,000 Marines finally arrived in Afghanistan and set up camp on November 25th, more than two months after 9/11.

Here's a quick quiz to determine your military-strategist potential. While our armed forces were on their way to Afghanistan, what do you suppose al Qaeda was doing: a) Playing Mahjong in an air conditioned cave; b) Running like crazy; c) Setting up production facilities to make videos.

Answer: None of the above. They were probably running, but not like crazy. One month is enough time to redecorate your cave, throw a lavish good-by party, then get out of town on a donkey. TWO months is enough time to move your cave to another mountain.

In fact, there are reports that on November 17, 2001, Osama bin Laden and his family left Jalalabad, eastern Afghanistan, in a convoy of 25 Toyota Land Cruisers for the mountains of Tora Bora. By around the end of the month, they had left Tora Bora and WALKED UNDISTURBED through the village of Parachinar.

By the time our giant B-52 bombers brought the war into full swing, bin Laden was nowhere to be found.

Now, six years later, it's pretty obvious how ineffective our strategy in the war against terror has been. Bin Laden is still alive, al Qaeda is still active, and the Taliban is making a comeback. Then, as if to insult our superpower status, we're being taunted regularly by al Qaeda videos.

But the problem doesn't end there. For bin Laden to be able to WALK through a town with an ENTOURAGE in the midst of a war in which he is the "most wanted," and not be immediately reported by the locals, shows a total lack of urgency by the commoners to get a master terrorist out of their midst.

Why should the locals care? Well, therein lies the problem; they have nothing to gain or lose by giving up a terrorist. If the locals thought for one moment that their entire neighborhood could suddenly turn into a crater, you think they'd care? You bet they would.

As someone once said, the best weapon is one you never have to fire. A close second, a weapon you only have to fire once? But the former can only work if your enemy is convinced you're fully prepared to use it.

One of our foremost weapons is the Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) Trident II. With a range of 7,000 miles, the Trident II can travel at speeds of 18,000 miles per hour (that's 5 miles per second). At this speed, you could travel several times around the world in one hour.

The Trident II could have reached the mountains of Tora Bora in less time than it would've taken bin Laden to gas up and check the oil for 25 vehicles. One massive warhead could have devastated enough of that lawless terrain to render it uninhabitable for years, and wipe out bin Laden and most of his henchmen at the same time. (Please note, this is not intended to dictate what our choice of missiles should have been. It's aim is to merely give some sense of what we have in our arsenal.)

What would such a massive response have accomplished?

First, as mentioned, we would in all likelihood have gotten rid of bin Laden and most of his men. Keep in mind, splinter and copycat terrorist cells were not as prevalent in 2001 as they are today. Taking out bin Laden in 2001 would have had a serious impact on terrorism. Today's more evolved terror infrastructure would probably not suffer nearly as much by the elimination of bin Laden.

Second, and probably more importantly, the shock of such a sudden and massive response would have gotten the message across to the world that we mean business. If you consider the impact 9/11 has had on us, it's hard to imagine a comparably cataclysmic event not having equivalent reverberations in terror-sponsoring or -harboring states.

Had we taken our enemy by complete surprise with a massive, devastating attack immediately after 9/11, we'd probably have needed little more than an 800 number to fight whatever was left of terrorism. I'm convinced, leads would have been pouring in from average citizens from a host of nations.

How would the world have reacted to such an immense retaliation by the U.S.? To begin with, our survival takes precedence over world opinion; we were attacked, after all. Then, world opinion was very much in our favor immediately after 9/11, even from countries not normally our best friends.

Some of those reactions:

Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi: "Irrespective of the conflict with America it is a human duty to show sympathy with the American people, and be with them at these horrifying and awesome events which are bound to awaken human conscience."

Syrian President Bashar Assad sent a condolence message to the White House, calling for "world cooperation to eradicate all kinds of terrorism."

Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, visibly upset: "We completely condemn this serious operation. We were completely shocked. It's unbelievable, unbelievable, unbelievable."

Sheik Ahmed Yassin, head of Hamas, said he was not interested in exporting such attacks to the United States: "We are not ready to move our struggle outside the occupied Palestinian land. We are not prepared to open international fronts ... "

North Korea called the attacks "tragic," adding that it "is opposed to all forms of terrorism."

Iranian President Mohammad Khatami expressed "deep regret and sympathy with the victims" and said "it is an international duty to try to undermine terrorism."

United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan: "There can be no doubt that these attacks are deliberate acts of terrorism, carefully planned and coordinated and as such I condemn them utterly. Terrorism must be fought resolutely wherever it appears."

French President Jacques Chirac: "France is deeply upset to learn of the monstrous attacks that have just struck the United States. In these terrible circumstances, all French people stand by the American people. We express our friendship and solidarity in this tragedy."

Chinese President Jiang Zemin sent a message to Bush, expressing condolences to the families of the victims of the attacks. He also expressed "grave concern" for the safety of Chinese in the United States.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak called the attacks "horrific," then added: "Egypt firmly and strongly condemns such attacks on civilians and soldiers that led to the deaths of a large number of innocent victims."

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad Mahathir was one of the few, if not the only one, who voiced opposition to retaliation.

This is only a small portion of the support we received immediately after 9/11. It's almost as if the world was expecting a vigorous retaliation. So much so, I believe terrorist-sponsoring states were trying to distance themselves from the attacks so as not to bear the brunt of our wrath.

That unique window of opportunity to stand strongly against those who would attack us slipped out from under us. Did our relatively subdued response save lives? Well, thousands of civilians and military personnel have already died in our conventional war against terrorism. The end of the war is nowhere in sight. And there's no telling how many more will die before it's over. It certainly doesn't seem like this path saved or will save lives.

All this isn't about "spilled milk" or America bashing. Quite the contrary. With the war on terror far from over, facing another attack on our soil is not out of the question. My hope is that, should there be a "next time," we will do things differently.

Some fear that using WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction), even to a limited degree, might open a Pandora's Box. Let's be realistic, that Pandora's Box is already open. Terrorists are actively seeking WMDs, and no one honestly believes they have any reservations about using them.

The consequences of not upgrading our tactics to match the threat-level we're facing today, is best summed up by a quote from Aaron Klein's book SHMOOZING WITH TERRORISTS: "If the American approach to dealing with terrorism is not re-examined in the very near future, if we don't begin to understand how the terrorists think and respond to our policies ... we face a devastating reality, with global jihad at our doorstep before we even realize what happened."

by Josh Greenberge

[Ziggy]

Axworthy is so right. An attack on Iran by the USA or Israel will certainly not stop Iran's nuclear program and in any case, what the Iranians are doing is perfectly legal under the NPT. Until there is conclusive proof that Iran is actually making nuclear weapons, then nobody has the right to try and abrogate Iran's legal right to enrich uranium. On top of that, an attack will just see Iran tear up the NPT, kick the IAEA out and really set to work to acquire an arsenal of nuclear bombs.

What I really hate about this affair is the scurrilous tactic of the USA to insist that Iran prove a negative - that it has no intention in the future to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody can prove a negatve. Even George Bush could never prove that he will never tell another lie.

The "prove a negative" ploy was used on Saddam Hussein, who obviously could never prove that he didn't have WMD, even though his nation was scoured by UNSCOM for years. Now the USA is trying the same stunt with Iran but the Iranians are not playing the game. It is not up to the accused to disprove unfounded allegations, it is up to the accuser to produce hard evidence to support any claims.

So far, the USA has produced no hard evidence that Iran is working towards building nuclear weapons and those documents trotted out showing that Iran might have studied the construction of nuclear warheads mean nothing. I have schematics here showing how to build a thermonuclear bomb (downloaded from the Internet), but that doesn't mean I'm going to make one.

The USA needs to put up or shut up. As long as Iran has a legal right to enrich uranium, it should be left alone. However, any fool that saw the US invasion of Iraq occur because Saddam Hussein had nothing to defend the nation with, compared to the toadying of President Bush to Kim Jong Il regarding North Korea's nuclear weapons that could have vaporises the US Seventh Fleet, would come to the conclusion that the only real way to stop American aggression is to have nuclear weapons.

I wouldn't blame Iran in the slightest if it acquired an arsenal of nukes for that reason alone.

[Sergei Etonhurst]

Superb and informative interview on a very important issue.
Let's make sure we send a copy to John McCain. Evidently he sorely needs the education!

[hass]

The US media is lying about the contents of the IAEA report on Iran: http://tinyurl.com/6qmtzj