Has the US Set a March Deadline for War on Iran?

Last month the US issued an ultimatum to Iran, demanding it fully cooperate with the IAEA by March or else face further action and possible measures at the UN Security Council. Micah Zenko, fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, speculates that this “could indicate that the Obama administration is moving toward the zone of immunity logic.”

Zenko is referring to the Israeli standard for deciding to go to war with Iran. Up to now, the Israeli standard to attack Iran is not when it has nuclear weapons or presents an imminent threat to Israel, but rather when Iran’s nuclear program is sufficiently advanced and redundant across the country – although not being weaponized – that Israeli military action would be inadequate to significantly retard it.

The US standard, at least as commonly understood, has been a little stricter. Washington has implied it will resort to war only if Iran is demonstrably weaponizing its nuclear program and on the verge of having a nuclear bomb.

Despite the semantic differences, the two postures are essentially the same. Both the US and Israel have ignored the legal standard for resorting to war – to block an imminent attack, i.e. self-defense – and crafted their own standard, which says they can bomb Iran to smithereens if they judge that at some point in the future Iran might be able to deter US or Israeli aggression. Iran must be kept weak and defenseless, the thinking goes, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to obliterate them at will.

This speaks to Iran’s nuclear posture, which is aimed at what is sometimes called “a breakout capability.” In an environment of constant threats of war, economic sanctions, and being surrounded by the US military, Iran has tried to abstain from developing nuclear weapons while having the know-how needed to get there; this essentially is an attempt to have a deterrent without actually having a deterrent. They don’t get in trouble for having a weapon, but they are able to ward off attack or invasion.

US intelligence corroborates this analysis. As James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, has repeatedly said, “We don’t believe they’ve actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon.”

So if the US’s announcement of a March deadline really does indicate a gradual shift toward the more trigger-happy Israeli standard for preemption, “how would this new intelligence be presented as a justification for war?” Zenko asks. After all, “it is tough to make the case for going to war with Iran because it refused to concentrate its nuclear sites (that are under IAEA safeguards) in above-ground facilities that can be easily bombed.”

Setting a March deadline provides some certainty and perhaps coercive leverage to compel Iran to cooperate with the IAEA. But declaring deadlines also places U.S. “credibility” on the line, generating momentum to use force even if there is no new actionable intelligence that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon. Based on what we know right now, that would be a strategic miscalculation.

A strategic miscalculation…and a savage war crime. Bombing Iran without the justification of self-defense against an imminent attack would be a war crime, a war of aggression. In the words of the Nuremberg Tribunal, “To initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”

And the effects of such a war of choice would certainly be evil. As a recent report by former government officials, national security experts and retired military officers concluded “achieving more than a temporary setback in Iran’s nuclear program would require a military operation – including a land occupation – more taxing than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.” More taxing, not just in dollar amounts and military resources, but in lives lost.

A recent study from the University of Utah’s Hinckley Institute of Politics found, an attack that tried to take out more than four of Iran’s main enrichment facilities would cause immediate casualties of an estimated “10,000 people.” And according to a 2009 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies “any strike on the Bushehr nuclear reactor will cause the immediate death of thousands of people living in or adjacent to the site, and thousands of subsequent cancer deaths or even up to hundreds of thousands depending on the population density along the contamination plume.” The fierce insurgency and counter-insurgency efforts that would inevitably take place, including a flood of jihadist fighters from around the world à la Iraq, would mean hundreds of thousands of lives lost.

More than that, an attack on Iran would motivate them to actually start building nuclear weapons in order to deter further aggression, bringing exactly the result the war-mongers claim they’re trying to prevent.

So why would the Obama administration ratchet up the stakes and impose an arbitrary March deadline? They claim there is a diplomatic window. As Clinton explained, “What was meant about the March reference was either about the IAEA and its continuing work or the fact that we finished our election and now would be a good time to test the proposition that there can be some good-faith serious negotiations before the Iranians get into their elections.” Elections make diplomacy harder, so yes, there is a diplomatic window. But the Obama administration may have locked themselves into a box by implicitly adopting the Israeli standard for preemptive war on Iran.

173 thoughts on “Has the US Set a March Deadline for War on Iran?”

  1. Setting a March deadline provides some certainty and perhaps coercive leverage to compel Iran to cooperate with the IAEA. But declaring deadlines also places U.S. “credibility” on the line, generating momentum to use force even if there is no new actionable intelligence that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon.

  2. There will. never be a war.iran and israel are both escape goats.
    no matter how big or. small the conflict neither side is willing
    to risk it. these kind of drama is. for the average wanna be
    politician. If iran wanted nukes they will buy it from north koreans
    tough talks are nothing unusual in politics. Both sides are great.bluffers.

  3. hat communities divert law enforcement resources from violent crimes to illegal drug offenses, the risk of punishment for engaging i

  4. saddivert law enforcement resources from violent crimes to illegal drug offenses, the risk of punishment for engaging i

  5. you get drunk in Riyadh. You don't get a great job at an influence mill with that on your résumé. You do if Ambassador to Saudi Arabia means what doing the "important work" needed under current polic

  6. get a great job at an influence mill with that on your résumé. You do if Ambassador to Saudi Arabia means what doing the "important work" needed under current polic

  7. The terrorists in the US will go insolvent. So, they won´t be able to terrorize the globe any more. However, extra-judicial murders by drones will proceed. They are right: U. s. Fool IS The Excellent The devil.
    san diego and video production

  8. The terrorists in the US will go insolvent. So, they won´t be able to terrorize the globe any more. However, extra-judicial murders by drones will proceed. They are right: U. s. Fool IS The Excellent The devil.
    Removalists in Brisbane

  9. There is nothing too messy or mistake too big for God. Reminds me of the hymn grace grace God's grace grace that is greater than all my sin.

  10. There is nothing too messy or mistake too big for God. Reminds me of the hymn grace grace God's grace grace that is greater than all my sin.

  11. thanks for sharing the information keep updating, looking for.Hope that you will continue with Nice to very useful info

  12. Setting a March deadline provides some certainty and perhaps coercive leverage to compel Iran to cooperate with the IAEA. But declaring deadlines also places U.S. “credibility” on the line, generating momentum to use force even if there is no new actionable intelligence that Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapon.

  13. I accept as true individuals should accelerate on vacations frequently because by doing it they will alleviate a allotment of stress from themselves. I see your purpose, tho' plenty of "writing service" firms do such factor, i do not suppose that you simply ought to say such things regarding them."!"

  14. your résumé. You do if Ambassador to Saudi Arabia means what doing the "important work" needed under current policies

  15. Let us help our country, to be one of a good influence. And because of that, we can achieve a peace of mind and to have a peaceful heart.

  16. 100% 60 DAY GUARANTEE – Just one pill used daily can produce a younger, smoother, more wrinkle free skin. TRY IT TODAY, nothing to lose. Most people notice a softening of the skin as a first result.

  17. Bass are no longer dealt with as a meals fish by the bulk of fishermen. When they capture basses, they released it as soon as it is captured.

  18. Total Flex is gym-quality and made of forged steel. Both the seat and back rest have thick foam padding for extra comfort and support. Best of all, Total Flex comes virtually assembled so all you have to do is slide it out of the box and attach the second Power Pod.

  19. THE MOST EFFECTIVE PHYTOCERAMIDES ON AMAZON – Kaybo Health's Phytoceramides only use premium quality, scientifically tested ingredients, and vegetarian capsules. Manufactured in the USA, in an FDA-approved facility with strict adherence to Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP).

Comments are closed.