When are we going to bomb Iran?

One of the most important reasons I had for voting for GWB over John Kerry in 2004 (though there were many reasons for my decision) was my confidence that Bush -- unlike Kerry -- could be relied upon to step up to the plate and actually do something to prevent the Iranian government from obtaining nuclear weapons. As you probably recall, John Kerry, and every other major Democratic pol I can think of, repeatedly stated that it was "unacceptable" for Iran to be allowed to have nukes. This continues to be their stated position, but other than calling for energetic diplomacy and international sanctions, it is unclear how -- or if -- they would intend to enforce the lack of acceptance.

Many advocates of taking our time with regard to Iran are comforted by the findings of the latest National Intelligence Estimate that Iran is five to ten years away from having a bomb. (Of course, these estimates were prepared by the same guys who told us that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons.) Unfortunately, news emerged over the past weeks suggesting that Iran's enrichment technology may be far more advanced than had been commonly supposed: Iran's openly acknowledged enrichment program (for "peaceful energy purposes only") is based upon cascades of "P1" type Pakistani gas centrifuges. Unfortunately, it now appears that Iran may have built or acqured more advanced "P2" model centrifuges from Pakistan's A.Q. Khan arms trading ring, which would drastically reduce the number of centrifuges and time required to produce weapons grade material. Also, the IAEA has no information on the location or number of P2 devices Iran has deployed, since Iran denies having made use of this technology at all.

From a tactical point of view, the sooner we attack and destroy Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities, the better. For one thing, each passing day allows Iran to create more enriched uranium. When their nuclear installations are ultimately destroyed, this material will be released into the environment, potentially exposing thousands (millions?) of people to dangerous levels of radiation. For another, Iran is expected to soon begin receiving 29 Tor-M1 air-defense missile systems, Russia's latest and most advanced low and medium altitude air defense system. When Iran deploys these systems around its nuclear facilities, the cost of any attack will increase, both in terms of lives and dollars.

From a political point of view, the Bush administration would like to delay any attack on Iran. At a minumum, it would be very costly for the Republicans if an attack were to take place before November's mid-term elections. In addition, the administration would like to "give diplomacy a chance to work" and cobble together an international coalition that would support military action against Iran. Finally, it would dangerous to attack Iran before a new Iraqi government is formed and, hopefully, stabilized the political and military situation in that country.

Barring a miracle (like Russia and China agreeing to impose strict economic sanctions against Iran, or the Mullahs deciding to back down from their effort to build a bomb), I expect that Iran will be attacked during the middle of 2007. If the US were unwilling to act, Israel would have no choice but to remove this existential threat to their society. Unfortunately, given the heaviliy fortified and dispersed targets in Iran, a single, long range raid (like the 1981 attack on Saddam's Osirak facility) would not be sufficient. That is, unless Israel were willing to use its own nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from developing ones of its own. This may be the choice that George Bush will face: an Israeli ultimatum that the US help Israel destroy Iran's nuclear facilities using conventional weapons, or else step aside while Israel handles the threat on its own.