Open Letter to the Neocons: We Can See You Squirming

The neocons and their 'mouthpiece,' George W, Bush are in quite a bind over what to do about Iran. In this open letter from a former Pakistan Air Force Officer, America's options in confronting Iran are examined, and with some relish, the author outlines why the neocons are 'squirming' over what to do next.

By Anwaar Hussain*
February 3, 2005
Pakistan's Pak Tribune - Original Article (English)    

Dear Neocons,

It is showtime over Iran. You are in a bind of your own making and, boy, am I glad to see it!

Allow me to explain.

Increasing Iranian belligerence vis-à-vis your pressure on Iran's nuclear program indicates that decision time has finally arrived. The words of your spokesman, the President of United States, having earlier included Iran as part of the "axis of evil" in a rush of blood, will not allow you to do nothing. You now must put up or shut up, once and for all.

Let us examine your options.

To start off, you could impose unilateral sanctions on Iran. There is no evidence, however, that unilateral sanctions have ever worked. Your country imposed over 80 unilateral economic sanctions on foreign nations from 1995 to 2001, and those sanctions cost U.S. companies up to $19 billion in 1995 alone. There are few items of international commerce over which your country has a monopoly. Target countries simply buy what they need elsewhere, while big American businesses lose sales to foreign competitors.

The next option involves multilateral sanctions on Iran through the U.N. Multilateral sanctions have a better chance of success, but they are hard to maintain. With China and Russia, Iran's two major trading partners, sitting on the U.N. Security Council, these are unlikely to materialize. Moreover, such sanctions eventually break down, especially when the target country has considerable deposits of tradable commodities like gold, diamonds or oil. Such goods are easily sold on international markets and are difficult to trace.

Not only are sanctions ineffective, they often end up hurting the very people they are meant to help. For example, the only significant effect that your country's sanctions on Iraq produced was, according to a U.N. Children's Fund Report, over 500,000 dead Iraqi children.

Next, you could get Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. There are, however, some deep-seated problems attached to this option too. Based on its known military capabilities, the Israeli Air Force can possibly conduct surgical strikes at the 1000km plus range, but it is incapable of a sustained air campaign against a full range of targets at such a distance. Furthermore, targets that are well-defended, like the Iranian nuclear facilities, must be attacked by a larger aerial force composed of attack aircraft, interceptors that protect them and other support elements. For a long term effect, therefore, any attempt to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities would necessitate sustainable operations on a large number of targets over an extended period of time.

Not having aircraft carriers of its own, taking out Iran's nuclear facilities would entail Israel conducting operations using facilities of a friendly country like Turkey or India. These states also have friendly relations with Iran and are, therefore, not likely to allow Israel to use their territories for such a purpose.

Secondly, the risk of a violent Iranian reaction may prevent Israeli leaders from choosing this option, especially when it might only serve to delay the progress of an Iranian nuclear program. In a nutshell, the option of getting Israel to attack Iranian installations is difficult because the probability of success is low, the risks are high, and reprisals are certain.

That brings us to your next option of using Israel as a part of a larger American effort. This is a non-starter. If your country undertakes joint preemptive strikes with Israel against Iran, it is sure to reinforce the existing perception in the Muslim world of an anti-Islamic Judeo-Christian conspiracy. Additionally, such an attack, particularly if it failed achieve its planned objectives, would have a destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East - the fountainhead of your much cherished substance, oil. It could also lead to a further acceleration of the Iranian program and a chain of violent clashes between Iran and Israel, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs.

Next, you could go it alone in a direct military confrontation.

Remember please that Iran is no Iraq. It is large, populous, rugged, and its nuclear facilities are spread throughout the country, some deep underground. A full-scale invasion would be a too-hot-to-handle venture for you. When one compares Iran to Saddam's Iraq, where you thought you would be greeted as liberators, it's not too difficult to guess the level of ferocity and popularity of a post-invasion Iranian resistance.

That brings us to your final option: a bargain with the Iranians. Here you have really become captives of your own bombast. Bargaining with Iran would mean offering the present regime incentives for disarmament while dropping the mad rhetoric of regime change. However, any overt bargain with Iran will surely be read as a retreat from your much-touted project of democratization and regional transformation.

Moreover, a U.S. bargain with Iran would have global effects. The most serious would not be in France or Germany, whose governments have made it plain that they have no stomach for America's future war parties, but in China and to a lesser degree in Russia. Beijing, Moscow and Tehran share a dislike of the Pax Americana and have a long record of direct and indirect cooperation on nuclear and missile programs. A weak-kneed American deal would invite further aggressive thrusts from China and Russia into this region, and would sound the death knell for your empire-building dreams.

In short, you are in a bind of your own making and we can see you squirming. Yes, your mouthpiece, George Bush, had some harsh words for Iran in his State of the Union address the other night, but gone was the bellicose swagger. His pitch differed sharply from the State of the Union address in 2002, when he stridently hitched together Iraq, Iran and North Korea in an "axis of evil." Now, he says "the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons." The world, please note, not the United States. Five years of misrule, a rapidly awakening citizenry and a bloody nose in Iraq does that, I guess.

Now what will you do, dear Neocons?

Yours truly,
Anwaar Hussain

P.S. Were it not for the chance of innocent human beings getting caught in the crossfire, I would have dared you to go for your guns and faster, please.

*Anwaar Hussain is a former Pakistan Air Force F-16 fighter pilot. With a Masters in Defense and Strategic Studies from Quaid-e-Azam University Islamabad, he now resides in United Arab Emirates. He has published a series of articles in Defense Journal, South Asia Tribune and a host of other web portals. Other than international affairs, Anwaar Hussain has written extensively on the religious and political issues that plague Pakistan.

VIDEO FROM IRAN: 'SUPERPOWERS MADE OF STRAW' BEHIND WORLD'S ILLS

Iran TV: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Issues a Rebuttel to George W. Bush's State of the Union Address, February 1, 00:06:00, MEMRI

"Allow me to say a word to the man who won his elections by spending billions of dollars and by a court order, thus becoming a leader of a large country."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad