War with Iran would entail grave risks

WASHINGTON -- The rumor mill is spinning over a possible war with Iran. Although the focus in recent weeks has been on suspected Iranian interference in Iraq, the main source of tension has been over Iran's nascent nuclear program. Advocates for war with Iran claim that only military action can prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. American Enterprise Institute's Joshua Muravchik declared: "We must bomb Iran." Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine, echoed these sentiments. "I pray with all my heart," he explained, that President Bush will "take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions."

I hope the president is a lot smarter than that; he should reject any suggestion that military action is imminent, and direct the other members of his administration to do the same. The costs of war vastly exceed the benefits, and there is a grave danger that conflict could erupt by miscalculation if the rhetoric is not toned down.

Even advocates for war do not expect military action to permanently halt Iran's supposed nuclear ambitions. Many Iranian nuclear facilities have been hardened against attack, some buried under as much as 18 meters of rock and concrete. Also, because many of the facilities are located in or near major population centers, bombing would result in significant civilian casualties.

It would also likely lead to a wider war. Iranian leaders, concluding that the survival of their regime was at stake, could retaliate in several ways, such as attacking fragile U.S. supply lines that snake through southern Iraq -- a low-risk, high-reward strategy for Tehran.

Preventive war is not the answer because the United States could deter a nuclear-armed Iran, a point recently affirmed by retired Army general John Abizaid "Let's face it," the former head of Central Command explained to a Washington audience last week, "we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well." Abizaid is correct; Iranian leaders are no more suicidal than Joseph Stalin or Chairman Mao. Justin Logan, a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, notes that Iran's leaders have acted with prudence and pragmatism over the past 27 years, and they have even reversed course when confronted with overwhelming force.

For example, as the Iran-Iraq War dragged into its eighth year, Ayatollah Khomeini sued for peace rather than suffer complete and total destruction by the hated Iraqis. Khomeini's successors would suffer a vastly greater defeat if they used nuclear weapons against the United States. They are almost certainly not that foolish.

Moreover, Iran is unlikely to give nuclear weapons to terrorists. Iran has never been known to transfer chemical or biological weapons to its long-time proxy Hezbollah, and the transfer of nuclear weapons would be far more risky. Furthermore, the mullahs could never be sure that nukes would only be used against their enemies.

If President Bush was truly committed to peacefully resolving the current standoff, he would reverse the policy of attempting to undermine the Iranian government, and would formally renounce the use of force for regime change. Washington could also offer to normalize diplomatic and trade relations, in exchange for Tehran's pledge to open its nuclear program to rigorous, on-demand international inspections to guarantee that nuclear material was not used for weapons purposes. This is essentially the same offer that the Bush administration extended to Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and to North Korea's Kim Jong-Il.

If the Iranians rejected such an offer, then the United States should be prepared to rely on deterrence. Launching yet another war in the Middle East, even as we struggle to extract ourselves from Iraq, would be nothing short of insane.

Christopher Preble is the director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. He will be discussing U.S.-Iranian relations at several events coordinated by the World Affairs Council of South Texas on Wednesday.