Tweet
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson on the Middle East, Proliferation, and Why
Israel Couldn't Take Out Iran's Nuclear Program Even if It Wanted To
By Nancy Shoenberger
March 03, 2012 "Vanity Fair" -- On a sunny afternoon in late
February, Vanity Fair met with Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former
chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell (2002-5), who is
currently an adjunct professor of government and public policy at the
College of William & Mary. Fresh from a meeting with legislators in
Washington, D.C., Colonel Wilkerson arrived at the Blue Talon, a
stylish brasserie located curiously in the heart of Colonial
Williamsburg, to talk about Iran's nuclear capabilities and their
implications.
Vanity Fair: How close is Iran to having a nuclear weapon, and what
should our response be?
Lawrence Wilkerson: I've spent almost two full days now on the Hill,
essentially talking to Democrats and Republicans, senators and
representatives and their staffs, about the catastrophe that would
result if we use military force against Iran.
What I understand from talking with the intel community and with
people in the White House is that our position - and I agree with this
position - is that Iran has not made a decision to weaponize. Iran may
be looking for a Japanese-type, latent capability. The inclination, I
think, of the current government is not to make that decision. What
I'm very concerned about is that our diplomacy, such as it is - mostly
sanctions - is forcing them into a decision that we don't want them to
make, which is to weaponize.
Confronted with Israel, which is already possessed of nuclear weapons,
and Pakistan, already possessed of nuclear weapons, I think Iran does
want the latent capabilities.
But that's not the same thing as saying we want to weaponize now?
In that space, there's room for diplomacy.
So the irony is that if we rattle the sabers too much, we'll force
them to do exactly what we don't want them to do.
Precisely. And that's what some neo-conservatives and their allies
want to happen. They want regime change.
That was one of the arguments for the Iraq war - out of the chaos a new
nation will be built.
Look what's happening right now in different countries. Egypt is
looking grim, and Libya is looking grimmer. In fact, this morning I
got a report from Iraq that's pretty grim. Look what we have happening
in Iraq right now. We have [Iraq's religious leader] al-Sadr arming
one side of the Syrian problem, and we have [Iraq's prime minister]
al-Malaki arming another part of the Syrian problem. And people think
this can't jump borders and become a regional and perhaps even a
global confrontation? It certainly can.
Israel makes the argument that if they delay a military strike, all of
Iran's nuclear facilities will be bunkered down so deep they'll be
unreachable.
The truth is - and my Air Force colleagues have given me some of
this - the Israelis could not take out Iran's facilities now. The
Israelis could not mount, without going to desperate ends, a 100-plane
strike, which is going to be necessary. They can barely get a hundred
airplanes out of their fleet. If they go to the end of their
operational tether without refueling help from us, I predict that it
will be as big a failure or worse than their incursion into Lebanon in
July 2006. And I say that for two reasons: 1) they will fail
militarily, and 2) regardless of their exquisite public-affairs
campaign to portray it otherwise, the world will know they failed. So,
this is a disaster for Israel if it goes ahead and executes.
Wouldn't there be intense rallying for our support, especially now
during an election year?
Yes. That makes President Obama's situation dicey because - and I think
that's probably what Prime Minister Netanyahu is thinking about - this
period of vulnerability, if you will, is political - it isn't military.
And if President Obama is re-elected, then Netanyahu's got problems,
because I think he'd be attacking Iran in utter defiance of the United
States.
What if Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney were elected president?
If we've got Santorum, or even what appears to be a pliable Mitt
Romney, who has neo-conservatives in his advisory group, then it's a
whole new game for Israel, which is one reason why I will admit,
though I'm disappointed in President Obama, I'm probably going to vote
for him again. And I'm a Republican.
Let's say Iran feels so threatened in the region they go ahead with
plans to weaponize. How is that going to affect the balance of power
in the Middle East?
I think what we'd see happen if Iran actually weaponized and
tested - you've got to test, so everybody knows - then Saudi Arabia would
buy a nuclear weapon from Pakistan, and it would end right there. We
would have deterrence. We'd have a stalemate. We'd have the Saudis
with the capability, we'd have Iran with the capability, we'd have
Pakistan with the capability, and of course India and others, and it
would stop right there. I hate to see proliferation - I'd rather see it
going the other way - but deterrence would work. These are rational
entities.
What do you think would happen if Israel does launch a strike? Would
it ignite an all-out war in the region? Encourage more terrorist
attacks? Close the Strait of Hormuz? Cause oil prices to soar?
All of the above. Close the Strait of Hormuz? I don't think the
Iranians would even try. If they did, we could reopen the Strait of
Hormuz rather easily. I don't see that as a big problem; what I see as
a big problem is that the threat would cause the market to become
extremely volatile, because no one would want to risk it. . . . This
is the kind of conflict that will make insurance rates go up, people
will not want to take the risks, and so forth. And the price of oil
will go up.
And I guarantee there will be countries in the world - and companies - who
will just salivate at that prospect and will want to make it go on.
Exxon Mobil. Or Royal Dutch-Shell, or Saudi Arabia. Or, for that
matter, al-Malaki in Iraq, who now knows he's sitting on as much oil
as Saudi Arabia's sitting on. His plans are to be at 13 million
barrels a day, which rivals Saudi production.
But your point about the volatility of oil? I recently participated in
Beijing in what was called a `petroleum disruption exercise.' We
posited a terrorist attack against Saudi production, for example. We
had shippers and insurers participating in the exercise - Lloyds of
London and so forth - and the price of oil went out of sight. Four
hundred dollars a barrel. Shippers wouldn't ship, and insurers
wouldn't insure. So these are possibilities. And talk about disrupting
an already fragile economy in Europe - and a fragile economy here, for
that matter.
We are looking at the possibility of taking the turmoil in Syria - the
so-called Arab Spring, which I like to call the Arab Awakening - and
igniting that in a way that is very detrimental to the world's
interest. And certainly regional interests. We're looking at the
possibility of sucking everything into a conflagration; that is
essentially what our attacking Iran ignites. It's a distinct
possibility.
And incidentally, some of my neo-conservative colleagues - I use that
term loosely - want that. They think that out of the cauldron of turmoil
and fire and blood - and they even quote Jefferson in this regard - will
grow these incredibly solid and prosperous and tolerant Jeffersonian
democracies. Which is preposterous.
Who in the administration or in the Department of Defense is pressing
for a military strike?
Inside the Pentagon, civilian and military, I cannot find a single
voice in favor of striking Iran.
What happens next?
Here's another tidbit for you. I was in Havana when Ahmadinejad was
there. I can't reveal my sources, but not only did the Cuban
government give him a third- or fourth-level award - which really made
him angry because it wasn't the top or even the second-level
award - they also delivered him a message from Fidel Castro: get off
this nuclear kick. Fidel is very anti-nuclear, as you might imagine,
given his experience with the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think he,
Kennedy, and Khrushchev all realized that they took the world to the
brink of extinction. Here's our archenemy in Cuba advising our
archenemy in Iran that they're on the wrong track.
Mind you, if we attack Iran, the Chinese will be ecstatic. Not only
will we be mired in yet another interminable war, but from this one we
might not recover for half a century.
Vanity Fair © Condé Nast Digital. All rights reserved.
Israel Couldn't Take Out Iran's Nuclear Program Even if It Wanted To
By Nancy Shoenberger
March 03, 2012 "Vanity Fair" -- On a sunny afternoon in late
February, Vanity Fair met with Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former
chief of staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell (2002-5), who is
currently an adjunct professor of government and public policy at the
College of William & Mary. Fresh from a meeting with legislators in
Washington, D.C., Colonel Wilkerson arrived at the Blue Talon, a
stylish brasserie located curiously in the heart of Colonial
Williamsburg, to talk about Iran's nuclear capabilities and their
implications.
Vanity Fair: How close is Iran to having a nuclear weapon, and what
should our response be?
Lawrence Wilkerson: I've spent almost two full days now on the Hill,
essentially talking to Democrats and Republicans, senators and
representatives and their staffs, about the catastrophe that would
result if we use military force against Iran.
What I understand from talking with the intel community and with
people in the White House is that our position - and I agree with this
position - is that Iran has not made a decision to weaponize. Iran may
be looking for a Japanese-type, latent capability. The inclination, I
think, of the current government is not to make that decision. What
I'm very concerned about is that our diplomacy, such as it is - mostly
sanctions - is forcing them into a decision that we don't want them to
make, which is to weaponize.
Confronted with Israel, which is already possessed of nuclear weapons,
and Pakistan, already possessed of nuclear weapons, I think Iran does
want the latent capabilities.
But that's not the same thing as saying we want to weaponize now?
In that space, there's room for diplomacy.
So the irony is that if we rattle the sabers too much, we'll force
them to do exactly what we don't want them to do.
Precisely. And that's what some neo-conservatives and their allies
want to happen. They want regime change.
That was one of the arguments for the Iraq war - out of the chaos a new
nation will be built.
Look what's happening right now in different countries. Egypt is
looking grim, and Libya is looking grimmer. In fact, this morning I
got a report from Iraq that's pretty grim. Look what we have happening
in Iraq right now. We have [Iraq's religious leader] al-Sadr arming
one side of the Syrian problem, and we have [Iraq's prime minister]
al-Malaki arming another part of the Syrian problem. And people think
this can't jump borders and become a regional and perhaps even a
global confrontation? It certainly can.
Israel makes the argument that if they delay a military strike, all of
Iran's nuclear facilities will be bunkered down so deep they'll be
unreachable.
The truth is - and my Air Force colleagues have given me some of
this - the Israelis could not take out Iran's facilities now. The
Israelis could not mount, without going to desperate ends, a 100-plane
strike, which is going to be necessary. They can barely get a hundred
airplanes out of their fleet. If they go to the end of their
operational tether without refueling help from us, I predict that it
will be as big a failure or worse than their incursion into Lebanon in
July 2006. And I say that for two reasons: 1) they will fail
militarily, and 2) regardless of their exquisite public-affairs
campaign to portray it otherwise, the world will know they failed. So,
this is a disaster for Israel if it goes ahead and executes.
Wouldn't there be intense rallying for our support, especially now
during an election year?
Yes. That makes President Obama's situation dicey because - and I think
that's probably what Prime Minister Netanyahu is thinking about - this
period of vulnerability, if you will, is political - it isn't military.
And if President Obama is re-elected, then Netanyahu's got problems,
because I think he'd be attacking Iran in utter defiance of the United
States.
What if Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney were elected president?
If we've got Santorum, or even what appears to be a pliable Mitt
Romney, who has neo-conservatives in his advisory group, then it's a
whole new game for Israel, which is one reason why I will admit,
though I'm disappointed in President Obama, I'm probably going to vote
for him again. And I'm a Republican.
Let's say Iran feels so threatened in the region they go ahead with
plans to weaponize. How is that going to affect the balance of power
in the Middle East?
I think what we'd see happen if Iran actually weaponized and
tested - you've got to test, so everybody knows - then Saudi Arabia would
buy a nuclear weapon from Pakistan, and it would end right there. We
would have deterrence. We'd have a stalemate. We'd have the Saudis
with the capability, we'd have Iran with the capability, we'd have
Pakistan with the capability, and of course India and others, and it
would stop right there. I hate to see proliferation - I'd rather see it
going the other way - but deterrence would work. These are rational
entities.
What do you think would happen if Israel does launch a strike? Would
it ignite an all-out war in the region? Encourage more terrorist
attacks? Close the Strait of Hormuz? Cause oil prices to soar?
All of the above. Close the Strait of Hormuz? I don't think the
Iranians would even try. If they did, we could reopen the Strait of
Hormuz rather easily. I don't see that as a big problem; what I see as
a big problem is that the threat would cause the market to become
extremely volatile, because no one would want to risk it. . . . This
is the kind of conflict that will make insurance rates go up, people
will not want to take the risks, and so forth. And the price of oil
will go up.
And I guarantee there will be countries in the world - and companies - who
will just salivate at that prospect and will want to make it go on.
Exxon Mobil. Or Royal Dutch-Shell, or Saudi Arabia. Or, for that
matter, al-Malaki in Iraq, who now knows he's sitting on as much oil
as Saudi Arabia's sitting on. His plans are to be at 13 million
barrels a day, which rivals Saudi production.
But your point about the volatility of oil? I recently participated in
Beijing in what was called a `petroleum disruption exercise.' We
posited a terrorist attack against Saudi production, for example. We
had shippers and insurers participating in the exercise - Lloyds of
London and so forth - and the price of oil went out of sight. Four
hundred dollars a barrel. Shippers wouldn't ship, and insurers
wouldn't insure. So these are possibilities. And talk about disrupting
an already fragile economy in Europe - and a fragile economy here, for
that matter.
We are looking at the possibility of taking the turmoil in Syria - the
so-called Arab Spring, which I like to call the Arab Awakening - and
igniting that in a way that is very detrimental to the world's
interest. And certainly regional interests. We're looking at the
possibility of sucking everything into a conflagration; that is
essentially what our attacking Iran ignites. It's a distinct
possibility.
And incidentally, some of my neo-conservative colleagues - I use that
term loosely - want that. They think that out of the cauldron of turmoil
and fire and blood - and they even quote Jefferson in this regard - will
grow these incredibly solid and prosperous and tolerant Jeffersonian
democracies. Which is preposterous.
Who in the administration or in the Department of Defense is pressing
for a military strike?
Inside the Pentagon, civilian and military, I cannot find a single
voice in favor of striking Iran.
What happens next?
Here's another tidbit for you. I was in Havana when Ahmadinejad was
there. I can't reveal my sources, but not only did the Cuban
government give him a third- or fourth-level award - which really made
him angry because it wasn't the top or even the second-level
award - they also delivered him a message from Fidel Castro: get off
this nuclear kick. Fidel is very anti-nuclear, as you might imagine,
given his experience with the Cuban Missile Crisis. I think he,
Kennedy, and Khrushchev all realized that they took the world to the
brink of extinction. Here's our archenemy in Cuba advising our
archenemy in Iran that they're on the wrong track.
Mind you, if we attack Iran, the Chinese will be ecstatic. Not only
will we be mired in yet another interminable war, but from this one we
might not recover for half a century.
Vanity Fair © Condé Nast Digital. All rights reserved.