| Royal United Services Institute of Vancouver Island | ||||||||||||||
  |
|
|||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
By Joseph B. Varner
Iran’s continued stridency has placed its nuclear and long-range missile programs on the brink of either American or Israeli pre-emption.
Before thousands of Iranian students at a recent "World without Zionism" conference, Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that Israel was a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map.” He declared that Iran would not give up its nuclear programs even if it faced referral to the UN Security Council and sanctions.
This brazenness, combined with the past year’s developments in Iran’s missile programs and the fact that its military power is firmly under the control of fundamentalists through the Supreme National Security Council, signal a deepening of the crisis.
In August 2004, Iran tested an improved version of its new Shahab-3 Medium Range Ballistic Missile (MRBM). Its 1300-kilometre range covers, not only every part of Israel, but also substantial areas of Turkey, a full fledged NATO member. Military sources have added that the missile had a new Chinese-made guidance system.
Reportedly in May 2005, Iran acquired nuclear capable, Kh-55 air-launched cruise missiles from Ukraine, the perfect weapon for a decapitation strike on Israel or its nuclear facilities. On June 10, Russia’s independent military newspaper, reported that Iran's Minister of Defense had announced a new two-stage solid propellant engine would be installed on the Shahab-3. August 9, the Tehran Times reported that the Shahab-3 missiles “are now accurate to within one meter of their target” and with a range boosted from 1,300 to 2,000 kilometers.
In September, it was reported that Iran was attempting to explode a warhead at an optimal height maximizing its nuclear effects, and that ‘hollow’ nuclear warheads had been previously flight tested. By last October, Iran was prepared to place its first Sina reconnaissance satellite into orbit.
Diplomats in Geneva have continued to warn that Iran appears to be enriching uranium and both the U.S. and Israel have warned that Iran could be in possession of a nuclear weapon within a year.
Iran is known to have stockpiled blister, choking, blood chemical weapons agents and is believed to have been conducting research on nerve, as well as biological agents. The respected International Institute for Strategic Studies report, Military Balance 2004-2005, has claimed that Iran is in possession of 12 to18 Scud B and Scud C launchers and some 300 nuclear-capable Short Range Ballistic Missiles (SRBMs).
Iran is also reported to possess 30 Chinese-made, nuclear capable CSS-8 launchers and some 175 SRBMs. Moreover, Iran is believed to have deployed six Shahab-3 MRBMs and it continues to develop a successor on Shahab-4 and 5 Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs).
Lastly, there have been a series of unconfirmed reports that Iran purchased, through Russian black market, 4 SS-18 MIRVed warheads from missiles being dismantled in Kazakhstan and returned to Russia under treaty.
Tensions between hardliners and moderates, high youth unemployment and student unrest, make the prospects for the eruption of civil strife in Iran high. Combine this with an aggressive long range-missile program, a relentless and inflexible pursuit of nuclear technology, and a poisonous worldview that rivals the worst of Nazi-era propaganda and you are left with a potentially deadly mix. Fears that Iran could lash out at long-standing enemies such as Israel, U.S. and their interests in the region cannot be taken lightly.
Diplomatic negotiations meanwhile have gone no where nor has the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) been particularly effective. Canada has had no small part in this debacle having served as chair of the IAEA Board of Governors for the year 2004-2005.
For the US, Israel and the Gulf states, endless multi-lateral negotiations without result have led to a strategic vulnerability where good policy options no longer are available. Indeed, it is necessary to face up to the fact that by drawing out negotiations, Iran has succeeded in achieving the strategic position it is now trying to consolidate.
Moreover, it is questionable whether or not a regime with apocalyptic views such as Iran’s can be deterred, making the threat of retaliation meaningless.
This leaves only two viable policy options: continue negotiating in the hope that a regime change will occur before Iran acquires nuclear weapons, a high-risk tactic that requires a priori acceptance of such acquisition, or pre-emptive attack.
The success of any pre-emptive strike against Iran cannot be guaranteed though, and such an attack risks precipitating consequences that are themselves difficult to predict.
The location of Iran’s nuclear and missile facilities are not well known. Some are believed to be hidden, while most visible sites are well defended from air attack. The chances of completely eliminating its nuclear threat are not good therefore, even with the relative precision of cruise missiles. Iran has also threatened, in the event of a pre-emptive strike by the United States or Israel, to take punitive action on the ground in Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sadly, American and Israeli policy-makers have now been forced into a ‘pressure cooker’ environment where they may decide to risk these consequences simply because the alternative risk is greater, and in the case of Israel, existential.
Canada can no longer afford to indulge the fiction that its vital interests are not fully engaged in this rapidly developing crisis. The recent impact of Hurricane Katrina on international oil prices should serve as a warning of how vulnerable our economies are to distant catastrophic occurrences, whether man-made or natural. It must also be remembered that with the development of long-range missiles, Iran has emerged as a direct threat to some of our NATO allies.
From a military point of view, Canada has little to offer. In diplomacy, however, there is much that Canada can do.
Canada as a member of IAEA Board of Governors should renew the demand for unfettered, no-warning inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities. This should be non-negotiable.
Canada should also push Iran to turn over a number of prominent members of al Qaeda known to travel freely in that country and end its assistance to other terrorist groups such as Hezbollah in the Middle East and Southwest Asia, as the Security Council has already demanded. Ongoing Iranian support for these terrorists poses a clear and present danger to Canadian troops in the region and the civilian communities they are trying to protect.
If Iran complied with these measures, a climate could emerge that would support further meaningful negotiations. Moves to help integrate the Islamic Republic into the international community as a partner and not as the ‘odd man out,’ could be encouraged by Canada.
Finally, Canada should declare that it will not tolerate the ongoing development of long-range missiles by Iran or its acquisition of nuclear weapons. And, that it will stand by the United States and Israel should either decide that it is necessary to take pre-emptive military action.
Over the course of the last 35 years Canada has carefully cultivated a reputation for pursuing a foreign policy independent of the United States and its traditional allies, notwithstanding its continued participation in NATO, NORAD and a host of other bilateral and multilateral security arrangements. Rightly or wrongly, Canada is regarded by much of the diplomatic community as being an ‘honest broker’ in international affairs. An unequivocal statement supporting the United States and Israel would be especially powerful coming from Canada, precisely because of its reputation for independent thinking on foreign policy. It would serve as a wake-up call to the international community regarding the seriousness of the situation.
Canada and its partners must adopt a muscular diplomacy to end Iran’s drive to be a military nuclear power or watch the Middle East region creep toward the precipice of pre-emption and perhaps the ‘apocalypse.’ Thus, a situation has developed with an increasingly strident Iran preparing for a nuclear showdown with the United States and Israel, and anyone else who might get in the way.
If Canada and its partners want to avoid American or Israeli pre-emptive action against Iran, with its unpredictable consequences that could follow engulfing Southwest Asia, we must take a firm diplomatic stand against the Tehran regime before it is too late. This means that Canada and its partners must give the Iranian government the option of negotiating in good faith or be faced with the consequences of the inevitable American and Israeli military response.
Joseph B. Varner chairs the national security committee of the Federation of Military and United Services Institutes of Canada. He is an assistant to Senator J. Michael Forestall, professor with American Military University and Senior Fellow at the Institute for Canadian Values specializing in national security issues and foreign relations. He resides in Ottawa, ON.
|
Top | | | Index | | | Previous | | | Next | © RUSI VI 2006 | |
