A new U.S. Defense Department report was submitted to Congress, Monday, detailing “near-term and longer-term threats posed by Iran, including Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its desire to extend its influence in the Middle East.” But the line causing the most buzz is “With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile [ICBM] capable of reaching the United States by 2015.”
Could Iran strike the continental United States in five years with a nuclear-tipped ICBM?
We ask Dr. Walid Phares, director of the Future of Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad. Phares has served both on the National Security Council’s advisory task force on nuclear terrorism (2006-2007) and as an adviser to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus of the U.S. House of Representatives (a position he has held since 2008).
W. Thomas Smith Jr.: The recently released DoD report on the Iranian military threat says, Iran could potentially launch a nuclear-tipped missile against us by 2015. There is also the suggestion in many quarters that we [the U.S.] may not have an adequate strategy to stop Iran from developing and deploying nuclear weapons. Is this possible?
WALID PHARES: Not exactly. We know that the U.S. military has multiple plans in place to address a variety of warfighting scenarios, just as the various departments of our foreign policy, national security, and the intelligence community does. The issue is not about the existence of plans and strategies; rather it is about adopting one. It is about decision-makers adopting a particular strategy regarding the Iranian nuclear program. Apparently thus far – and unless we see otherwise – the administration’s primary policy is to continue to engage the Iranian regime in the hope that it will come along to our way of thinking; even the applied sanctions are a component of this, part of a carrot-and-stick approach. You see, there is a difference between a strategy to stop the program and a strategy to engage the regime, hoping it will lead to a containment of the program. That said, the report's contention that there is no strategy to stop Iran's program, may – I suppose – be accurate, short of a massive change in global strategies.
Smith: But the Iranian regime is moving virtually undeterred in the development of its nuclear weapons program, to include missile delivery systems, both medium-range missiles and long-range ICBMs. So if there is no comprehensive strategy to shut this development down, are we just fiddling while Rome burns between now and 2015?
PHARES: If we don’t stop Iran’s nuclear program and its weapons delivery systems before 2015, then, yes, the United States will be under direct threat from a Jihadist regime, which has declared that “a world without America is possible.” Hence, the answer is clear: American foreign policy must change to meet the challenge. U.S. strategies must be capable of countering this threat at least by 2013. There should be a reevaluation of the current direction in global strategies and a new approach must be devised. I have long called for an engagement with the people of Iran instead of betting on any rational behavior by the sitting Khomeinist regime. This seems to be the alternative direction of U.S. policy, but this is not where Washington’s foreign policy is going at this time. It is amazing how developments can be forecast at this point. If we don’t change, the other side is going to continue moving forward, unstoppable. It is a very clear equation.
Smith: Obama suggested during the recent nuclear security summit that the U.S. and its allies are putting adequate pressure on Tehran to force the regime toward a change in policy. Is this so?
PHARES: From what we see, Iran's strategic calculus is far ahead of the calculus of the current U.S. administration. Tehran is working on producing nuclear weapons, developing delivery systems, preparing to deploy them and structuring its regional alliances. They are way ahead of us in this regard. The Iranian regime – and its allies in the region – follow the rhetoric and actions of U.S. leaders very closely. Since the last two years of the previous administration and the first two years of the current one, the calculus in Tehran has compelled them to go forward faster not slower in achieving their goals. It has caused them to reach out to Hugo Chavez’s regime in Venezuela, arm and train the insurgency in northern Yemen, incite Hamas against the Palestinian Authority, and push Hezbollah closer toward seizing Lebanon. One can see clearly that the calculus in Tehran is changing fast, but not in moderation, just the opposite. Consequently, I think we are the ones who need to change our calculus, not the other way around.
Smith: You say “American foreign policy must change” in order that we are capable of countering this threat by 2013 as opposed to 2015. You’ve also said, on Al Hurra TV and Nile TV International, that Scud missiles sent by Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon will change the strategic balance of power in the region. Why do you say these missiles change the balance of power when Hezbollah’s arsenal already includes thousands of rockets and missiles?
PHARES: The Iranian-Syrian axis is testing the international reaction by making limited moves, one-after-the-other. Since the Syrian-Lebanese border is wide open and not controlled by the UN or any multinational force, the smuggling of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon is free and uninterrupted. It has been so despite United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559 (2004) and 1701 (2006) which strictly forbids shipping weapons to Hezbollah. Yes, there are thousands of missiles and rockets in Hezbollah’s arsenal, but advanced SCUD missiles – if properly deployed – not only could provoke an Israeli action, but could threaten other parties in the region, including U.S. and allied Naval forces, American bases in Turkey and Jordan, if not beyond. We’re talking the eastern Mediterranean seaboard here. Hence, the U.S. call to Syria to stop these shipments and retrieve the weapons is correct and must be very clear. The Syrian regime should take advantage of Washington's diplomatic protests to withdraw these missiles and refrain from sending more weapons to Hezbollah.
