Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The United States might have to adopt a "mini Cold War" strategy to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, a leading arms control expert said yesterday (see GSN, Nov. 3).

"You have to think along those lines that if you're going to contain and isolate Iran that it's going to require some of the same thinking that went into containing the Soviet Union," David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said during a presentation at George Washington University.

The United States spent decades during the Cold War try to restrain the Soviet Union and halt the spread of communism to other countries.

Albright's proposed long-term strategy -- which would include alliance building with other Gulf states, continued negotiations with Tehran, increased intelligence operations and additional economic sanctions -- could also be applied if Iran successfully developed a nuclear weapon, he said.

Those tactics echo the type used against Moscow during decades of international tension, which saw extensive spy activities and establishment of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as a mutual defense pact between the United States and European nations.

Iran in 2003 acknowledged operating a secret nuclear program, which it says is entirely peaceful in nature but which the United States and other nations fear is aimed at producing nuclear weapons. Years of negotiations have failed to persuade Tehran to stop developing capabilities that could allow it to produce weapon-grade uranium.

Tehran has seemingly discarded a plan introduced last month by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei that would see its uranium enriched in other countries (see GSN, Oct. 21). The proposal would address looming worries that Iran could use its existing stockpile of low-enriched material to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon.

Iranian officials have expressed concerns that world powers would refuse to return the uranium and suggested that the Gulf nation could import the material or be allowed to gradually turn over limited amounts for refinement rather than quickly transferring a large sum of its stockpile.

Albright said the proposed plan was "clever" and a "win-win" for Washington and Tehran but that Iran's recent "backtracking" has made him pessimistic about its chances of success.

Regardless, "we're reaching a critical point in assessing Iran's nuclear program and designing a strategy to deal with that program," according to Albright.

He said one indication that the United States has begun to formulate a Cold Ward approach came in September when U.S. President Barack Obama announced he would reorient a proposed missile shield in Europe toward the growing Iranian short- and medium-range missile threat (see GSN, Sept. 17).

Iran defines much of its military power through its missiles force and includes possible use of those weapons in its national security decisions, according to Albright. The reconfigured missile shield would serve to counter a key Iranian military threat, he said.

"This missile defense reorientation is directly related to reducing the threat posed by Iranian missiles in the region," Albright told Global Security Newswire.

The United States would continue negotiations with Tehran under Albright's strategy, making it clear, though, that the latest low-enriched uranium deal would not be altered.

"There's nothing lost" by negotiating "but I wouldn't have any expectations," he told the audience yesterday.

Albright said his approach would involve economic punishment for Tehran, but added that "sanctions, by themselves, are unlikely to do much to a country like Iran." He noted Iraq endured years of crippling sanctions and still offered only reluctant cooperation with international weapons inspectors -- including Albright himself -- between the two Gulf wars.

While sanctions are meant to "tax" the Iranian economy, Albright warned against implementing "draconian" restrictions such as cutting off the Gulf nation's oil exports. He said any sanctions should be mixed with economic incentives that leaders in Tehran could use to justify a change of mind toward the nuclear program.

The United States and Europe also would have to "lure" other nations in the region, such as Syria and Turkey, away from doing business with Tehran, according to Albright.

"We can offer [Syria] a lot more money than Iran can" in terms of economic investments and integration into the global economy, he said yesterday after his presentation.

The United States and Europe also would have to work toward creating an environment in the region that is sympathetic to non-nuclear-armed states like Turkey and Egypt so that those countries do not seek nuclear weapons, Albright said.

Part of the approach would include first persuading Israel to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and a fissile material cutoff treaty, he added. Jerusalem today is believed to hold the only nuclear arsenal in the Middle East.

Albright said the United States could have to bolster its military presence - including additional Air Force and Navy forces -- in the region. The presence would have to be "credible" and "enough to calm our allies to defend against any Iranian attack and discourage Iranian adventurism," he said.

The United States could also have to provide more money to Israel so that it could field its own missile defense system, Albright said

Since Iran must buy its nuclear equipment, the international community could flood the black market with faulty parts, he said.

When asked how Russia might react to the proposed strategy, Albright said the plan would be implemented by the United States and Europe and therefore not require Moscow's involvement. The Kremlin has proved exceedingly reluctant to impose significant sanctions on Iran.

"If we say we're not going to attack Iran ... it might neutralize them better," Albright said. He added that Russia's recent comments against penalizing Iran for failing to disclose its Qum uranium enrichment facility are "frustrating" but hoped Moscow would prove more sympathetic if Tehran formally turns down the latest low-enrichment offer.

The ISIS chief flatly ruled out military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, saying they would be a "losing game" because its centrifuge program is widely dispersed and could be easily replicated. The international community also does not know if Iran has additional, secret nuclear sites, he added.

If the United States or Israel were to bomb the Gulf nation it would "open the door for [Iran] to launch a [Manhattan Project] to build nuclear weapons," Albright told the audience, alluding to the 1940s U.S. program to build the first atomic bomb.

"If you bomb them they may feel there is nothing left to lose" and accelerate their program, he later said, adding no one can predict Iran's level of retaliation or if such action might be directed against U.S. allies in the region like Saudi Arabia.

Albright predicted his proposed strategy could take as long as the original Cold War, which lasted roughly 50 years.

"But look at how long we've had a problem with Iran already," he told GSN yesterday.

Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said the range of options Albright laid out are not that new and have been debated among nonproliferation analysts or are already being implemented by the federal government.

The Obama administration is considering new options, including covert operations, to prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons, Katulis said today in a brief phone interview.