It’s universally anticipated that IAEA chief ElBaradei will report tomorrow afternoon that Iran has not complied with demands to freeze its uranium enrichment program. If so, and given the opposition of Russia and China to imposing sanctions, speculation regarding the possibility of American airstrikes at some point in the future will further increase.
Should the use of force against Iran’s nuclear facilities take place, it must be assumed that it will occur without the approval of the UN Security Council. The question therefore arises as to how our government would justify such an action.
The justification, I believe, would be the Carter Doctrine.
In his January 23, 1980 State of the Union address, President Jimmy Carter gave voice to the doctrine that would bear his name:
An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
This never-superseded doctrine was Carter’s response to the Christmas Day 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which took place just seven weeks after the takeover of the American embassy in Tehran.
Earlier in his address, Carter said that the Soviet invasion “could pose the most serious threat to world peace since the Second World War.” These alarmist words were a far cry from those he uttered in his Notre Dame commencement speech on May 22, 1977:
Being confident of our own future, we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism which once led us to embrace any dictator who joined us in that fear.
Echoes of Carter’s “inordinate fear of communism” are now being heard. Arising mostly, but not entirely, from the Left, the echoes are sounded by those who believe that Iran is the latest example of threat exaggeration by the Bush administration. For these individuals, an inordinate fear of Iran is the follow-on to an inordinate fear of terrorism and an inordinate fear of Iraq. While the more moderate of the administration’s critics have honest disagreements over such matters as how long it might take Iran to develop nuclear weapons, others argue that threat exaggeration is the means by which Bush is implementing his nefarious scheme to further the concentration of power in the Executive Branch of government.
Carter’s naivite regarding, and subsequent awakening to, the Soviet threat should be a lesson for those who maintain that the threat of a nuclear Iran is being exaggerated—in timing, magnitude, or both. As every student of the Cold War knows, there are two components to threat assessments: capabilities and intentions. By 1977, the U.S. and the Soviet Union each knew that the other possessed enough warheads and missiles to annihilate the other. Carter’s mistake was not due to a flawed estimation of Soviet capabilities. Beguiled by “peaceful coexistence,” he erred in his assessment of Soviet intentions. Prior to their invasion of Afghanistan, the Soviets had never dispatched their armed forces into a country outside of Eastern Europe. When their first soldier landed in Kabul, more than thirty years of Soviet behavior was turned on its head. No wonder, then, that Carter could say that the invasion “could pose the most serious threat to world peace since the Second World War.”
Without question, the intent of the Carter Doctrine was to warn the Soviet Union that it had better not use Afghanistan as a staging area for a future attack on a post-revolutionary Iran whose ability to defend itself had been severely weakened by a purge of the Shah’s officer corp. Nonetheless, these words from the Doctrine warrant a close reading:
While the Doctrine’s intent was specific, its wording was not:
- It does not specify that American military force could be employed if and only if the “attempt” were undertaken along classical military lines.
- It does not specify that American military force could be employed if and only if the “attempt” were undertaken by the Soviet Union.
- It does not specify that American military force could be employed if and only if the “attempt” were to gain control of Iran.
Thus, the Carter Doctrine can be interpreted as also being applicable to unconventional warfare undertaken by any state or non-state actor, including Iran, that threatens any territory in proximity to the Persian Gulf.
I share your concerns and have no qualms about attacking Iran if required, but please can you explain to me how Iran can be an “outside power” in “the Persian Gulf region”.
Perhaps you addressed this somewhere in your post but I didn’t see it at the beginning and I hadn’t the patience to read the whole thing at the moment given the apparent oxymoron you have produced.
Juan,
Let me clarify via an example. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) are in the Persian Gulf region. An attack by Iran on Saudi Arabia or the UAE would constitute an attack by an outside power.
But Marc, it’s common knowledge today that the U.S. support of the mujahideen in Afghanistan started under the Reagan Administration. Of course that’s wrong, but that’s how history has been re-written.
[...] Could the Carter Doctrine be used today in terms of Iran’s nuclear program? Marc Schulman takes a look. [...]
I see only two possible solutions to the Iran problem. Either the West swallows hard and allows Iran to have the bomb (while some EU nations will do their best to ignore it and some Arab nations will applaud it, nuclear fallout anyone?) Or, the US will bomb the sh** out of Iran’s nuclear sites (without UN approval). EU diplomacy has hurt more than it has helped as it has just stalled the enevitable and allowed Iran 3 more years of development. China and Russia will never put the breaks on the Mullahs because of oil supply, China, and business interests, Russia. Israel can not afford politically to bomb a Middle East neighbor. I have thought all along that the EU knows that the U.S. is their real bargaining tool and would be quite happy for us to take the fall after they exhaust all their “happy talk”.
Just waiting for the other shoe to drop…
While I absolutely see Iran as a threat, much more so than Iraq ever was, I don’t see it possible to use the Carter Doctrine to “justify” the use of force against Iran.
Juan Golblado above questioned the consideration of Iran as “an outside force.” I would fully dismiss Iran as “an outside force.”
The Carter Doctrine referrs to “an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region,” meaning any force outside of the Persion Gulf region trying to limit U.S. access to what it sees as “vital interests” in that region; namely, oil. Iran is one of the providers of oil in the Persian Gulf, thus not an “outside force.”
Furthermore, Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon doesn’t necessarily (though it could) threaten U.S. access to oil, so even if it was an “outside force,” the doctrine wouldn’t work.
However, Iran does threaten America’s existence, and it more immediately threatens the the existence of Israel.
Iran’s leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has already declared his intention to destroy Israel. I think it would be better to create a new doctrine for dealing with Iran in that light, or finding one that declares our intention to protect Israel. What more is needed?
If Ahmadinejad is so intent on destroying Israel and sees the United States in a similar light, then it is clear that he must be both stopped from gaining access to a nuclear weapon and be captured or killed as soon as possible.
In addition, the people of Iran have already expressed their full unadulterated hatred of their unrepresentative government, which, like China, pretends it is a republic. Iranians, unlike Iraquis, have begged the United States to free them from their government’s iron fist and help them create a true republic.
I believe the rationale for the Iraq war was unfounded—though I feel we now have the responsibility to see it through. On the other hand, if the Iranian government shows that it will not submit to U.S. and U.N. requests that it not seek nuclear weaponry, we must strike immediately. Ahmadinejad has made it clear that he plans to do whatever it takes to spite any pending sanctions, and China and Russia have made it clear they don’t support sanctions.
If the U.N. will not enforce such critical nuclear policy, we must! The justification is simple: the protection of the United States and Israel’s right to exist as free, Constitutional republics.
Bush and his poor ability to lead this country must be set asside for this battle. If he is successful administering an attack against the Iranian government that gives the country back to its people, then perhaps he will earn back some lost credibility.
I tend to agree with Juan that the “outside force” clause makes this particular statement inapplicable to Iran unless, as you say, Iran makes a hostile move against another state in the region.
I also think the Carter Doctrine was rooted in the Cold War which, for most of the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s was based on the tacit assumption that both sides realized they had every reason to avoid a nuclear showdown over anything but national survival.
The current Iranian president I don’t think can be approached with the same mentality in mind. Draw a line in the sand and Brezhnev wouldn’t cross it. Draw a line in the sand now, and Ahmadinejad will run right up to it and play footsie with it.
Callimachus,
The Persian Gulf is an international waterway. Doesn’t that mean that an Iranian attempt to take control of it (e.g., by mining it) would run up against the Carter Doctrine?
How naieve; they’d pay as much attention to that as they do now to the 1998 Clinton resolution regarding Iraq.
Gosh, I’d just love to see Jimmy’s face when somewhen suggests this too him. My guess is his face will turn red, purple, and white – I’m just not sure about the order.
Yes, definitely mining international waters would open up a casus belli argument.
No one can foresee precisely what course it will take or what costs or casualties will be incurred. Many months of sacrifice and self-discipline lie ahead – months in which both our patience and our will be tested – months in which many threats and denunciations will keep us aware of our dangers. But the greatest danger of all would be to do nothing.
The cost of freedom is always high – but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender or submission.
Extracts from President John F. Kennedy‘s address to the nation, October 22, 1962.
Iran says does not “give a damn” about UN resolution
A deadline ignored
Unfortunately…the Iranian’s will not be motivated by the same reason or logic which prevailed and prevented a war, conventional and/or nuclear, some 44 years past.
Maybe someone would like to contribute and send a commemorative black-wreath to the UN today?
>>The justification, I believe, would be the
>>Carter Doctrine.
The Carter Doctrine might justify a military strike against Iran by American Law.
But fortunately, American law is not applicable to any place outside the United States.
Consequently, any military operation against Iran by the US or a “coalition of the willing” without a resolution of the UN Security council would still remain an illegal war of aggression.
The same type of illegal war that Hussein fought against the Kurds, the same type of illegal war that Bush is fighting against Iraq.
The only difference is: while one war criminal (Hussein) is facing a trial, the other one (Bush) is not. THIS remains illegal and also unfair.
How can we expect to explain to other people how justice works if we refuse to apply justice to criminals in our own ranks just because he happens to be the president?
Sorry I took long…here it goes.
As Matt identified above, the Carter Doctrine was promulgated by a US president and as such as American not international law. In essence the it was more of a policy position than a legal basis for war. However, given that it was announced as American policy, if it was not challenged by the Soviet Union, or any other power since, the doctrine has the potential to carry some weight internationally. This is particularly true since the US used the Reagan Corollary to the Carter doctrine as a reason legitimizing the US’s provision of protection to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia during the Gulf War. No one objected to said justification, and I believe that under International Law if at the time a policy or rule is promulgated noone opposes it, then it gains validity internationally.
That said, given the perception regarding the manner in which we went into Iraq, mainly that the US lied about WMD to justify its invasion. As you know, I supported the Iraq war, and have differences with the administration mostly with regard to manner in which it has conducted the post war occupation (but that is a different post). However, the perception is there, and it is ingrained in the international psyche. As such, convincing the world, or even arguing for the Carter doctrine as the basis for any attack against Iraq, would be seen as further proof of American imperialism and blood thirsty aggression.
Further, due to this perception we will likely have to go to war with a much reduced coalition of the willing. I don’t know whether NATO countries are ready to committ troops, but even if they did, we would still have to deal with the likes of Russia, China, India and other players who rely on Iranian oil and natural gas supplies in order to power their economies. If Iranian energy shipments are interrupted, or cease completely, this would have a huge effect on East Asia’s economic prospects and would threaten the stability of China directly. This might force it to engage militarily in the Persian Gulf to secure its energy resources. The same goes for India, who just recently signed an agreement with Pakistan and Iran for the construction of the Iran-Pakistan-India natural gas pipeline, worth millions of dollars and giving Pakistani-Indian relations a much needed boost, as it brings them closer economically and gives them both a stake in maintaining good relations. Think of this as the equivalent of the Carter Doctrine, unstated though it is, but given how much stake China has in energy shhipments from Iran to power its economy, which allows it to reduce or restrain its population by providing for job creation and improvements in the standard of living. In essence, competing national security considerations would put us exactly where we don’t want to be, competing militarily in a vital region with the Chinese, who would have India, Russia and East Asia on their side (Osama’s dream fulfilled). But I digress, given that this post is supposed to be focused solely on the Carter Doctrine vis a vis Iran.
Returning to the Carter Doctrine, it will be extremely difficult to legitimize an attack on Iran (absent a first strike by Iran on a neighboring country) because in the Persian Gulf, the US is the foreign power, far more than Iran. Going back to my earlier argument about International Law, given that the Carter Doctrine was promulgated specifically to keep a foreign power (Soviet Union) out of the Persian Gulf, and was accepted on that basis alone, it might not carry as much weight (as far as law is concerned) if we are going to use it against one of the regions hegemons.
While I disagree that confronting Iran militarily is the answer in this instance (as you know), I think a better way to legitimize any such action would have to be by pointing to Iran’s failure to comply with the mandates of the IAEA. If you want to legitimize the action, this seems like the only way. Absent this, we can still go to war, but it will be illegally in the eyes of international law, and by extension the international community. In that case, we can expect even less help, not to mention troops, than we received in Iraq, a worsening international situation as China and other powers begin to try to balance us to prevent such an action of occurring again, not too mention the loss in prestige and legitimacy we will suffer as a result. Further, such an action will also leave us with an unstable, and violence prone Iran as al Qaeda moves into the vaccuum left behind by the deposed mullahocracy (if it were to fall) giving them free passage from Pakistan and Afghanistan (not to metion Central Asia) to the Middle East through various transit points…in essence uniting the Iraqi jihadist (those led by Zarqawi) with their al Qaeda brethren. In addition, such action has the potential to unite Sunnis and Shiites against a perceived common enemy, including those in Southern Iraq making for a very bloody campaign, which would only be exacerbated by any Israeli aid or actions.
So in conclusion, I do not think the Carter Doctrine could legitimize our actions (except maybe with a part of the American public) and what is more I think such an action would be unwise.
The Barnett Approach
A better course would be to accept a nuclear Iran. What do I mean by that? No, I do not, repeat, do not mean that we should just say okay, you want the bombb you got it and go our merry way. Rather, I mean we use the talks we are currently holding with Iran in Iraq with respect to the future of that country as a venue for addressing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and make a grand bargain with Iran. One, we recognize them as a major power in the region, promise to promote their candidacy for entry into the WTO, end the sanctions regime we currently have against them, and allow them to proceed with their nuclear enrichment and eventual entry into the nuclear club. What do we demand in return? First, an end to its support to terrorist groups, including Palestinian groups, recognition of Israel, help in settling the situation in Iraq and Lebanon, aid in pressuring Syria to comply with the UN and more open inspections and compliance of its nuclear research. Make it binding by bringing in the Chinese, Russia, India, Japan, Saudi, NATO to sign on with the knowledge that any actions from the US to comply by the US will be based on Iran’s compliance with the bargain and that any continued support to terrorist groups is cause for action against Iran.
The effect of this would be, to strengthen the hand of moderates within Iran because Ahmedinejad will not have the US as the enemy which requires his rhetoric. If Ahmedinejad refuses (he won’t because Khameini has the last word and he will accept such a bargain), but if Iran refuses, then the US can say it went the extra mile to resolve the situation and hence far more standing to press Iran to give in (including military action). Ahmedinejad would be blamed and his group would loose not only face but also legitimacy. Bringing in China and others into the fold would mean that we begin a process of engagement with China and cooperation (rather than confrontation) in a region vital to both our economies, thereby reducing the specter of another Cold War. This is also a big carrot for China to help us in getting Iran to comply, because it would mean that its future energy supplies would be assured if Iran agreed. If Iran refuses, China would be more likely to support a tougher line, because the regime in Tehran would seem far more unstable and unreliable (passing up an opportunity to get on our good graces) and securing China’s energy supplies. Also, it would mean that both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be on an equal footing (since Iran would have to recognize Israel per our agreement) and resolution would be far more possible, as Barnett argues, because Iran is the regional hegemon and all other Muslim states largely operate in its shadow. Such an agreement would also mean a reduction in Iranian detrimental involvement in Iraq or the reduction of support to the Shiite militias and people like Sadr.
In time, the hardliners no longer having the US as the Great Satan that is the cause of all their problems, would recede into the background making way for other Iranian groups to come to the fore and who would be more interested in making money and growing their economy (not to mention who had a stake in the system) than in undermining regional security. Additionally, given that Iran is one of the most open societies in the Middle East (a sad, but true comment) it would further the Big bang in the region because it would likely help us push the Sunni monarchies and dictatorships to reform as the violent and extreme jihadi (wahhabbi) branch of Islam is just as much a danger to Shiites as it is to the West, if not more, as Sunni extremists see Shiites as worse than the Great Satan himself.
I never thought I’d find myself agreeing with Jimmy Carter but I do believe that threatening oil supplies is an act of war. Indeed, I wrote a whole post about it (https://bookwormroom.wordpress.com/2006/03/23/yes-war-for-oil/). I then got into a big, albeit very polite, fight with a conservative friend about this, because he does not believe a country’s decision to withhold oil can ever be a justification for the US attacking that country. I believe though that, in the modern world, withholding oil from America is tantamount to dropping a bomb on it. I don’t deny our problem with oil addiction, but nothing can change the practical effect of cutting of our supply—it will destroy America instantly. And to destroy America instantly is an aggressive act no matter how you slice it.