Son of MAD

Newsmax is running a poll asking "Should we bomb Iran". I voted no. The problem with this line of thinking, in line with the Bush Doctrine which stresses the need for pre-emptive actions to ward of potential threats, is not so much from a military as from a political standpoint. As the failure to find WMDs in Iraq has shown, preemption has the negative consequence of leaving the US without the "smoking gun" of proof, both for the benefit of skeptics within the US and for those friendly or neutral countries whose support we would prefer to have on our side in the GWOT. Indeed, the negative political fallout from the Iraq war for the administration may be acting as a "posion pill" on future plans for preemptive action in Iran or North Korea. There is even some thought that it has tied the administration's hand from taking more aggressive action to counter the genocide taking place in the Darfur region of Sudan. Overwhelming military might does not negate the need for political support, both at home and abroad.

So how do we leverage our military might with rogue regimes like Iran and North Korea? Here is the summary paragraph from the AEI's publication on the Bush Doctrine linked to above:

The preservation of today's Pax Americana rests upon both actual military strength and the perception of strength. The variety of victories scored by U.S. forces since the end of the cold war is testament to both the futility of directly challenging the United States and the desire of its enemies to keep poking and prodding to find a weakness in the American global order. Convincing would-be great powers, rogue states, and terrorists to accept the liberal democratic order--and the challenge to autocratic forms of rule that come with it--requires not only an overwhelming response when the peace is broken, but a willingness to step in when the danger is imminent. The message of the Bush Doctrine--"Don't even think about it!"--rests in part on a logic of preemption that underlies the logic of primacy.

But "dont even think about it" worked very well during the Cold War as a deterrent strategy under the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD. The problem applying MAD to the era of non-state entities like Al Quaeda and their state sponsors like Iran is that the traceability of weapon to source is very difficult to prove. But here is where we can leverage our immense arsenal to our advantage.

I think that the US should stay engaged with the UN and the IAEA to continue to press non-nuclear states to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But on the side, strictly as a US initiative, we tell nations that will not cooperate the following: non-cooperating states go on the "list". When you are on the "list", all potential nuclear development sites in your country are targeted by US ballistic nuclear missiles. If we do not have good intelligence on where your sites are, we will overcompensate by increasing the number of potential sites we target. These are not tactical nukes, mind you, but strategic.

Now, in the event that the US or any nation that it has diplomatic relations with is hit by a nuclear explosion, and the source of that weapon is not immediately identified, ie. it was a suitcase nuke and not delivered by missile from an identified country, then every nation that is currently on the "list" will be hit with overwhelming nuclear retaliation.

The beauty of this strategy is that we put the rogue state in the drivers seat, and not the US. The ball is in their court, so to speak. The one advantage that we have vis a vis Iran is an overwhelmingly pro US populace. Let's ratchet up the pressure on the Imams, both hidden and visible, by making their populace vividly aware of the grave danger that their insane leaders have put them in. Lets start funding insurrection movements in Iran. Let the people have a reason to take their fates into their own hands.

The other beauty of the plan is that Iran now knows that it can be destroyed even if North Korea supplied the bomb to the terrorists, and vice versa. Suddenly these regimes will feel a lot less in control of their own fates. I'd call that a mighty big bargaining chip on our side.