Debunking the options

"All options are on the table" is an oft heard phrase in the recent discourse revolving around the Iranian nuclear programme. With many iterations emanating from a number of eminent personalities including Barack Obama and Binyamin Netanyahu, the phrase carries great rhetorical appeal and an ominous vibe. But what, pray tell, are these options? In a recent interview published in the Atlantic, the President explained that they included a political component, an economic component, a diplomatic component and a military component. Cut through the doublespeak and it is glaringly obvious that each of the aforementioned options has already been exhausted. The political component has been used for the greater part of the past 30 years. The economic component was used in 2006, 2007, 2008 and in 2010-the outcome of which has still not crippled the Iranian economy as it was supposed to. As for the diplomatic component, the limited success (if at all) of initiatives such as the Tehran Declaration, the Paris Agreement and the Turkey-Brazil fuel swap deal in making headway to a solution speak for themselves. Therefore, the only "option" that remains on the table is that of a military component. A military component, however, has a number of options within itself. Tactical air strikes on Irans nuclear power plants courtesy the Israel Air Force as an option has gained credence in Op-Eds and foreign policy journals in recent weeks. However, the idea seems more practical in the blogosphere than in reality. According to military analysts and officials, "[Israels] pilots would have to fly more than 1,000 miles across unfriendly airspace, refuel in the air en route, fight off Irans air defences, attack multiple underground sites simultaneously - and use at least 100 planes." The ingenuity of the Israel military complex clearly has its limits. Alternatively, the USA may opt to strike Irans nuclear power plants rather than Israel. Though undoubtedly, leagues superior with regard to the apparatus required for such a strike, Uncle Sam lacks political will in this instance. Congressional support has existed in spurts for such an option, and it is doubtful that Obama will once again be able to pull a "Libya"- sanctioning military action without congressional support on the pretence of "minor hostilities". For the sake of argument, however, assume that it is feasible, politically and otherwise, for Israel or the USA to launch such a pre-emptive strike (a great number of pundits and bloggers believe so, at any rate). Is it in either nations interest to use such an option? Consider the ramifications of an Israeli strike. Iranian retaliation is sure to follow. National sentiment against the "Zionist regime" and "Western powers" runs deep in the theocracy; an assault on national infrastructure will inevitably provoke a (dis)proportionate response. During a simulation of such a scenario by the Brookings Institution, the mock-leadership of Iran responded with retaliatory strikes on a number of Israeli targets, directed Hezbollah and other militant groups to attack the Israeli populace and orchestrated bombings in Europe vis-à-vis cells present there. Some Israel-loyalists are willing to bear such a response, if the Iranian nuclear programme is struck. A former official famously stated "Forty missiles fired at Israel are no small matter - but its better than a nuclear Iran." Even if we agree to the assumption that the backlash will only be in the form of military force, the argument fails when it assumes that a military strike will completely obliterate Irans hope for a nuclear programme. Irans nuclear programme is scattered across the country in oftentimes clandestine facilities. The facility in Fordow is built into a mountain and Natanz is underground, reinforced with meters of concrete and earth. There is no possibility of a guaranteed destruction of all such facilities in a military strike. These are but a few reasons why even the former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan labelled a pre-emptive strike "the stupidest thing I have ever heard." True, the idea makes for a great rhetorical device. True, it politically solidifies the "special relationship" that Uncle Sam harbours with Israel. And it definitely helps Obama gain some much needed brownie points from AIPAC in election year. But come on, Barack and Bibi: neither of you is holding all the cards, nor is Iran about to fold.