Iran’s long-range strategy

My personal opinion is that Iran’s leadership wants to be attacked, and it doesn’t really matter to them by whom – be it Israel, the US; alone or in concert with others. I’m not sure to what degree Iran would seek to retaliate beyond some kind of token response. But that’s not the point. Iran is not seeking, this early in the game, to attack US interests or even make a serious attempt to bloody Israel.

The point is: After being attacked, Iran can act the part of innocent victim – after all, they don’t have nukes yet nor is there any proof they’re moving in that direction. However, what they can do is announce to the world that they are pulling out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty with the full intention of building nuclear weapons. They can claim that wasn’t their original intention, while adding, “In response to the attack on our peaceful nuclear program, we feel we must be able to defend ourselves from an increasingly hostile Western alliance.”

For the benefit of Third World countries, many of them formers colonies and victims of the Western Powers, the mullahs could point to Article X of the NPT, as expressed by Wikipedia:

Article X allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months' (ninety days') notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Leaving_the_treaty

The extraordinary events mentioned above would be the fact that Iran was attacked without provocation and without proof they either had or were in pursuit of nuclear weapons. As for “The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT…,” those reasons aren’t subject to review by any international authority.

The coup de grace against the West could be expressed this way: “Once a nation leaves the NPT, it cannot otherwise be legally barred from seeking nukes. And neither the UN nor any nation that respects international law would have any legal basis for further action against Iran, be it militarily or in the form of economic sanctions. In short, the mullahs would love a chance to use Western-based law against the West – and to tempt them to attack again without any legal basis for doing so. The eyes of the Third World would be watching very carefully.

As a hedge against the West attacking again, Iran could try to build nuclear weapons’ facilities underground in heavily-populated areas, and do so openly. The mullahs could even be tempted, as the digging commences, for volunteers (that is, potential martyrs) to live above these facilities, while allowing residents to opt out and be relocated. If anyone is tempted to attack Iran now, he would be strongly advised to consider what Iran’s long-term response would be. A worst case scenario would involve Russia endorsing Iran’s pursuit of nukes after an attack, with Russia offering to intervene should the West mount another attack.

If Obama is made aware of Iran’s Long-Range Strategy, then he in turn should (privately) convey that to Netanyahu. If Israel should attack anyway, the US should not participate except, perhaps, to offer intel against a possible Iranian air or naval response against Israel.

As a further deterrent, Obama could privately tell Netanyahu in advance, “If you attack, I will make it known that you and I had discussed that attack’s inadvisability due to Iran’s Long-Range Strategy. We will make it known you acted on your own without any US green light. And I’m not worried about losing US Jewish support because I can make up for any possible losses there from increased support from US citizens who would see that Israel acted irresponsibly and entirely too early.”

If Obama’s GOP opponent(s) would then wish to rattle the war sabers, they will cut off any possible support from independent voters.

If we want to make a meaningful and positive impact on Iran, we should withdraw our warships to the Indian Ocean, we should stop responding tit-for-tat with our words to counter words coming from Tehran, we should stop the economic sanctions against Iran – which are a form of undeclared war. We should also look to the future to anticipate the impact Iran might have in light of its Long-Range Strategy. Who’s to say that a post-attack Iran wouldn’t try to acquire allies in Africa or among the Arab Spring states, trying to position itself as a benevolent (and martyred) big brother with possible designs of leading a New Caliphate?

Closing comments:

I can only guess what Iran’s Long-Range Strategy might entail. But what started me thinking was this thought: “Why doesn’t Iran simply withdraw from the NPT, 90-days after which they could openly and legally seek nuclear weapons?” In spite of how many USers feel about Iranians, they’re not a bunch of subhuman idiots. These are highly intelligent people who are very capable of long-range thinking. So there has to be a reason why they’re not simply withdrawing from the treaty. That’s what started me thinking about what their ultimate game plan might be – hence this essay.

We would do well to think long-range about this as well and not kneejerkingly end up doing something stupid – which could play directly into our “enemy’s” hands.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle for US President in 2012

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“There’s way more going on here than meets the eye.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com