Professors Gary Sick and Mohsen Milani: On Iran and the Nuclear Negotiations

On Thursday October 15, Israel Policy Forum held a conference call briefing to discuss the ongoing negotiations over the Iranian nuclear program. The panelists were Professors Mohsen Milani and Gary Sick. Professor Steven L. Spiegel moderated the call. The following is a summary of their remarks.

Is Iran doing all it can to get a nuclear weapon?

Professor Milani: I believe Iran has not made the decision to build a nuclear bomb. Iran intends to develop the infrastructure, technology and know-how to build a bomb should Iran decide one day to build the bomb. There is a huge difference between the two.

Professor Sick:  The Shah himself believed in what he called a "surge"; that is, a capability for Iran to be roughly 18 months away from a bomb and stay there. You can do that within the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). There are about 40 countries in the world that have that capability and Iran is determined to be a member of that club. In fact, I think it is a member of that club.

How important are trust and perception in the ongoing negotiations?

Professor Milani: The perception in the West, and especially in America, and perhaps even in Israel, is that Iran is governed by irrational religious fanatics who are hell-bent on having the bomb and who will then use the bomb in order to create a worldwide Islamic government. According to this paradigm, Iran is determined to export their revolution and create a new balance of power in the Middle East. Everything that I have seen about the Islamic Republic has convinced me that we don't have a bunch of mad mullahs running Iran. We have a bunch of calculating ayatollahs who make their decisions based on cost and benefit. Even if Iran does get a nuclear bomb, I think the U.S. is capable of containing Iran and deterring the threat.

Professor Sick: Our problem with Iran is one of trust, and that if you fundamentally distrust another government, then you are going to basically assign to them the worst possible intentions. I think Iran has earned that lack of trust. Addressing the issue of trust ultimately requires addressing the question of intentions.

Would a surgical strike be possible? How would Iran retaliate?

Professor Milani: The distinction between a surgical strike and a full-blown war is a myth, it doesn't exist. Once you start attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, regardless of your intention, I think you could end up with a major regional war. In case of an attack on Iran by Israel, the Iranians are going to retaliate, and they are going to retaliate quickly. Iran has developed retaliatory capability inside Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon, and they're going to use it. A surgical strike is going to change the dynamic of Iranian politics - people are going to rally behind the flag and the Islamic Republic - and for all practical purposes, you would see the end of the reformist movement.

Professor Sick: The idea of a surgical strike is an illusion. Basically, if you try for a surgical strike, you are going to have to be prepared to go all the way. On retaliation, it would not just be from Hezbollah firing rockets at Israel, which Israel could sustain. Nor would it simply be from Iran launching suicide missions at Israeli sites around the world. They might do that, but Israel would survive that also. Nobody in the world would believe that Israel had acted without U.S. approval. So I think the retaliation would also be against U.S. forces, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the current negotiation efforts fail, does an Israeli military strike become likely?

Professor Milani: Israel has the option of starting a war, but then it’s going to be up to Iran to decide how to end it. I don’t think it is going to be in the interests of Israel, I don’t think it is in the interests of the U.S., and I certainly don’t think it is in the interests of Iran to see Israel and Iran engaged in a war.

Professor Sick: I think the chance of an Israeli military strike on Iran, a unilateral military strike, is very close to zero. Israel wants people to believe it has the capability to strike and might very well use it. But, there are a whole series of consequences that flow from that, which are not only bad for peace in the Middle East but are bad for Israel, the U.S. and regional states. It is in Israel’s interest and perhaps in ours as well, as a negotiator, to keep that uncertainty out there floating around. But if you look at where Israel has conducted successful strikes in the past there was one thing they had in common, in all of those cases they didn’t say a word in advance, they wanted the element of surprise.

On the demonstrations after the recent elections:

Professor Milani: What we witnessed was an authentic Iranian uprising. It was domestic, it grew from the anger and frustrations of the people who believed in the system of the Islamic Republic and who opposed the system. Clearly, once the movement began, foreign powers sought to exploit it for their own interests.  However, to make the claim, as the Islamic Republic does, that this entire uprising was foreign inspired or foreign orchestrated is nonsense.

Professor Sick: The Iranians should be very careful when they start accusing the rest of the world of a velvet revolution because they're really saying we've lost the belief of the people themselves. One way the outside world really played a huge role was in providing uploads and servers. Those kinds of capabilities made an enormous difference. Anything that can be done to make it easier for Iranians to communicate with each other is one of the most useful things you can possibly do.

Professor Gary Sick is an Adjunct Professor and Senior Research Scholar at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. Professor Mohsen Milani is a Professor and Chair at the Department of Government and International Affairs at the University of South Florida.

Compiled by Josh Smilovitz