A Few More Thoughts on Iran: Why the Letter by 47 Republican Senators Was a Bad Idea – And What We Need To Do Now

On Monday, 47 Republican senators, organized by Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark), sent an open letter to the leaders of Iran telling/reminding them that any agreement or arrangement Iran might enter into with President Obama on its nuclear program would, unless it was in a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate, be binding only on President Obama and that it might not be accepted by the next president.

While, at this point, these comments might seem a little late, I think they are still relevant because they are less focused on the past and more focused on the future; i.e., they are concerned with getting our policy on Iran closer to right for the future, regardless of how poorly we have done it in the past.  With that introduction, here are my thoughts:

I am not sure I understand the purpose of the Republican letter.  So far, the only thing it seems to have accomplished is to unite the Democrats in the Senate.  Even Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), who has expressed strong reservations about the President’s Iran policy, including co-sponsoring sanctions legislation with Mark Kirk (R-Ill), wouldn’t sign the letter.  Instead of uniting people who want a stronger policy vis-à-vis Iran, Senator Cotton’s letter divided them.  Also, instead of uniting people to deal with the likelihood that Iran will eventually get nuclear weapons, either because it waits out the time limits of a weak agreement, breaches the terms of any agreement, or doesn’t enter into an agreement, Senator Cotton has put them on opposite sides.

A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll said that 71% of Americans think that any agreement President Obama reaches with Iran is not going to make a difference as to whether Iran gets nuclear weapons.  In fact, under the outlines of the agreement that we have been reading about in the media, Iran could get nuclear weapons in a little over ten years if it is willing to wait or in about one year if it “broke out” under the agreement.  Actually, saying we have a one-year break-out period is optimistic.  We probably wouldn’t catch Iran that quickly.  The warning period would be months, at most.

Which means that the key to our Iranian policy is to be ready to respond if Iran gets nuclear weapons or clearly breaks out of any agreement in a drive to get nuclear weapons.  In fact, it is not a matter of being ready to act if one of those things happens; it is matter of acting now, so that our response will already be in place if (when?)  Iran gets nuclear weapons.

What would such a policy consist of?  While I would not discount a military response, especially publicly (we shouldn’t say what we will or will not do), we need to consider all options.  The Iraq war did not go all that well (and it still isn’t).  How do we think military action in or against Iran would go?  We need to come up with a policy, or set of policies, that do not involve military action, but while not taking a military response off the table.  It would seem to me that such a policy would consist of at least three parts.  (There are probably more, but let me address these three for now.)

First, we must be ready to reinstate whatever sanctions we relax because of any agreement we reach with Iran – and add more.  We need to get other countries to agree now to move quickly if Iran gets nuclear weapons or breaks out of any agreement.  In the United States, legislation identifying what we would do should be passed now.  While President Obama might not like this idea, Congress has previously passed Iran sanctions legislation that the President did not like.  But to do this, Republicans need Democrats in Congress to work with them.  Creating unnecessary divisions between congressional Republicans and Democrats, as last Monday’s letter did, won’t further this goal.

Second, we need to accelerate our missile defense programs.  In addition to its nuclear program, Iran has a rocket program.  Iran, of course, says this program is not for military purposes.  It doesn’t matter if they are telling the truth.  Even if the program is for scientific purposes now, it could be used for military purposes in the future.  One part of our response to Iran’s possible nuclear program (or anybody else’s, for that matter) must be a strong missile defense.  But you can’t build it at the last minute.  I know we are working on missile defense programs now, but we need to accelerate that work.  Once again, this is not going to be easy because the Obama administration does not seem enthusiastic about missile defense.  To do this, congressional Republicans and Democrats will need to work together.  Which once again means that Republicans need to figure out ways to work with potential Democratic allies in Congress, not alienate them,

Third, how will Iran’s neighbors and near-neighbors react if Iran gets nuclear weapons?  For that matter, how will Iran’s neighbors and near-neighbors react if Iran is just one year away from getting nuclear weapons?  Actually, we may already know.  According to Thursday’s Wall Street Journal, Saudi Arabia has signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with South Korea.  Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief has said that Saudi Arabia would match whatever Iran is allowed to do under any nuclear agreement it signs.  And if Saudi Arabia does not have the technical ability to do this itself, it has the money to buy it.

Turkey, too, is concerned about Iran’s nuclear program, as is Egypt.  What might they do if they think Iran is getting too close to nuclear weapons?

For an administration concerned with nuclear non-proliferation, an Iranian break-out to nuclear weapons, or even an agreement that puts Iran uncomfortably close to nuclear weapons, creates the real possibility of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.  For me, as somebody who grew up during the height of the Cold War, and remembers On the Beach and Alas, Babylon not as old novels but current best sellers, this is a sobering thought.

During the Cold War, the United States was able to convince its allies that they did not need nuclear weapons of their own because our nuclear weapons would defend them.  Is that something we are willing to do again today in order to reduce the risks of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East?  Would we be willing to extend our nuclear umbrella to countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey¹, and Egypt?  Would they trust us, if we did?  Alternatively (or additionally), would we be willing to either provide missile defense programs to Saudi Arabia, et al, or at least include them under the protection of our programs?

Doing all of this will take a lot of work.  Some of it we can start on now.  We can pass sanctions legislation that would apply if Iran breaks out or otherwise gets too close to nuclear weapons in violation of any agreement it signs.  We can ramp up our missile defense program.  While it will take time to get an effective missile defense program in place, the faster we work, the sooner it will get done.

Finally, the question of how we prevent any agreement with Iran from resulting in more countries having nuclear weapons requires serious thought by serious people.  One hopes the Administration is working on it, but in the meantime, Congress needs to think, too.  Republicans and Democrats need to work together, not pull in opposite directions.  It does not appear to me that the approach of Senator Cotton’s letter is helpful in this.
--------------
¹ Obviously, we already have a common defense agreement with Turkey: NATO.  However, I am not sure how the NATO agreement applies in the Middle East.  Under Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, all NATO members “agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”.  How does an attack on Ankara, which is in that part of Turkey in Asia, fit under this language?  Would Turkey think that it needs nuclear weapons if Iran gets them?