Paul Ryan, Credibility, and Iran

Paul Ryan is a dashing young man, isn’t he? Composed, good looking, a great smile and no real clue what he’s talking about when it comes to US foreign policy and Iran. He could also be one emergency away from the Oval Office, which is why the absurdity of his remarks on Iran last night were so troubling. Credibility, according to Ryan, is how we convince the ayatollahs to end their nuclear quests. 

The Obama administration doesn’t have that credibility, apparently, because of an Obama talk show appearance while Benjamin Netanyahu did his best Roadrunner impression in front of the UN, and because of recent remarks by Robert Gates on the potential fallout a strike on Iran could cause. This lack of credibility, of course, has made the military option, well, lack credibility:

“They say the military option's on the table, but it's not being viewed as credible. And the key is to do this peacefully, is to make sure that we have credibility. Under a Romney administration, we will have credibility on this issue.”

Let’s ignore the fact that Ryan gave no reason why a Romney administration would be more credible, and we can discard his hopeful thinking that an Israeli strike on Iran won’t actually happen in the spring. We can also forget some of the reasons why the ayatollahs couldn’t care less about Obama’s moves on the issue, such as their own strategic deterrent rational for having a bomb or a history of Israeli bluffs when it comes to a strike. Let’s not even look at the issue of sanctions, which had Biden rolling his eyes and chuckling enough to make Sean Hannity question the vice-president’s health. Let’s simply look at, for better or worse, US military credibility in Iran.

1. Stuxnet

By our own definitions, the United States and Israel have conducted cyber-warfare on Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility, destroying hundreds of Iranian centrifuges in the process. The operation, dubbed Olympic Games, began under the Bush administration and was ramped up by the Obama administration shortly after he took office. The computer virus, Stuxnet, eventually escaped Natanz and was discovered, and could thus be studied and possibly duplicated. Since then cyber-warfare has become a hot-button issue, and Leon Panetta is quite worried about what could happen if and when a virus is turned loose against American infrastructure. 

 2.       Mujahedin-e Khalq

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, especially when the enemy of my enemy has an influential lobby in Washington. By taking the MEK off of its terrorist list, the United States enraged Tehran and made it clear that terrorism isn’t considered terrorism if a mutual enemy is involved. With the backing, or at least the guaranteed blind eye, of the US government, MEK can receive funds and materials and has gained an air of legitimacy in the international world, despite how mainstream Iranians perceive the group, and their alleged ties with Mossad in the assassination of Iranian scientists working on the country’s nuclear capability.

 3.       Shadow Wars

Israel and Iran have long been engaged in tit-for-tat shadow wars targeting state officials and civilians. Israel’s Mossad, in conjunction with the MEK, has carried out successful attacks on Iranian scientists that have left five dead since 2007. Iran and Hezbollah have responded with their own terrorist actions, most recently in the Bulgaria bus bombing that left five Israeli citizens dead. Israeli assassinations have been carried out with a lack of condemnation by the United States, and support for Israel has not wavered.

Whether or not these actions by the United States are beneficial or not is outside the point. In reality, neither the Obama administration nor the potential Romney administration will want to engage Iran militarily. For Ryan to assume, however, that the ayatollahs are scoffing at a US military option is absurd, given the military components already in play. If military credibility is what is at stake with Iran, there is not much more the United States can do besides escalating what has already become a hostile situation. One can only hope that Ryan doesn’t actually believe what he’s saying, but he has given little indication that his foreign policy views are any more nuanced than what can typically heard on Rush Limbaugh’s talk show. And that, of course, is troubling to say the least.