Showing posts with label sanctions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sanctions. Show all posts

Monday, May 14, 2007

An Ominous IAEA Report On Iran

In advance of the IAEA report expected next week the New York Times is reporting that the IAEA, in a "short notice" inspection of Iran's main nuclear plant, discovered that Iran now has some 1,300 centrifuges up and is expected to increase that total to 3,000 by June. It takes 3,000 centrifuges working for one year to produce sufficient fissle material for one nuclear bomb. Iran's intent is to have 8,000 centrifuges running by the end of the year. In other words, time for tepid sanctions appears be completely gone. Unless economy-crippling sanctions are imposed - or we launch off the carriers - Iran will either have or be positioned to have a nuclear arsenal in the very forseeable future:

Inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency have concluded that Iran appears to have solved most of its technological problems and is now beginning to enrich uranium on a far larger scale than before, according to the agency’s top officials.

The findings may change the calculus of diplomacy in Europe and in Washington, which aimed to force a suspension of Iran’s enrichment activities in large part to prevent it from learning how to produce weapons-grade material.

In a short-notice inspection of Iran’s operations in the main nuclear facility at Natanz on Sunday, conducted in advance of a report to the United Nations Security Council due early next week, the inspectors found that Iranian engineers were already using roughly 1,300 centrifuges and were producing fuel suitable for nuclear reactors, according to diplomats and nuclear experts here.

Until recently, the Iranians were having difficulty keeping the delicate centrifuges spinning at the tremendous speeds necessary to make nuclear fuel and were often running them empty or not at all.

Now, those roadblocks appear to have been surmounted. “We believe they pretty much have the knowledge about how to enrich,” said Mohammed ElBaradei, the director general of the energy agency, who clashed with the Bush administration four years ago when he declared that there was no evidence that Iraq had resumed its nuclear program. “From now on, it is simply a question of perfecting that knowledge. People will not like to hear it, but that’s a fact.”

It is unclear whether Iran can sustain its recent progress. Major setbacks are common in uranium enrichment, and experts say it is entirely possible that miscalculation, equipment failures or sabotage — something the United States is believed to have attempted in the past — could prevent the Iranian government from reaching its goal of producing fuel on what President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran boasts is “an industrial scale.”

The material produced so far would have to undergo further enrichment before it could be transformed into bomb-grade material. To accomplish that, Iran would likely first have to evict the I.A.E.A. inspectors, as North Korea did four years ago.

Even then, it is unclear whether the Iranians have the technology to produce a weapon small enough to fit atop their missiles, a significant engineering challenge.

While the United Nations Security Council has passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend all of its nuclear activities, and it has twice imposed sanctions for Tehran’s refusal to do so, some European nations, and particularly Russia, have questioned whether the demand for suspension still makes sense.

The logic of demanding suspension is that it would delay the day that Iran gained the knowledge to produce its own nuclear fuel — what the Israelis used to refer to as “the point of no return.” Those favoring unconditional engagement with Iran have argued that the current strategy is creating a stalemate that the Iranians are exploiting, allowing them to make technological leaps while the Security Council steps up sanctions.

. . . In a telephone interview, R. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for policy, who is implementing the Iran strategy, said that while he has not heard about the I.A.E.A.’s newest findings, they would not affect American policy.

“We’re proceeding under the assumption that there is still time for diplomacy to work,” he said, although he added that if the Iranians did not agree to suspend production by the time the leaders of the Group of 8 industrial nations meet next month, “we will move ahead toward a third set of sanctions.”

Mr. ElBaradei has always been skeptical of that strategy, telling European foreign ministers that he doubts the Iranians will fully suspend their nuclear activities and that a face-saving way must be found to resolve the impasse.

“Quite clearly, suspension is a requirement by the Security Council and I would hope the Iranians would listen to the world community,” he said. “But from a proliferation perspective, the fact of the matter is that one of the purposes of suspension — keeping them from getting the knowledge — has been overtaken by events. The focus now should be to stop them from going to industrial scale production, to allow us to do a full-court-press inspection and to be sure they remain inside the treaty.”

The report to the Security Council next Monday is expected to say that since the Iranians stopped complying in February 2006 with an agreement on broad inspections by the agency around the country, the I.A.E.A.’s understanding of “the scope and content” of Iran’s nuclear activities has deteriorated. I

. . . The inspection conducted on Sunday took place on two hours notice, a time period so short that it appears unlikely that the Iranians could have turned on their centrifuges to impress the inspectors. According to diplomats familiar with the inspectors’ report, in addition to 1,300 working centrifuges, another 300 were being tested and appeared ready to be fed raw nuclear fuel as soon as late this week, the diplomats said. Another 300 are under construction.

“They are at the stage where they are doing one cascade a week,” said one diplomat familiar with the analysis of Iran’s activities, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the information. A “cascade” has 164 centrifuges, and experts say that at this pace, Iran could have 3,000 centrifuges operating by June — enough to make one bomb’s worth of material every year. Tehran may, the diplomat said, be able to build an additional 5,000 centrifuges by the end of the year, for a total of 8,000.

The inspectors have tested the output and concluded that Iran is producing reactor-grade uranium, enriched to a little less than 5 percent purity. But that still worries American officials and experts here at the I.A.E.A. If Iran stores the uranium and later runs it through its centrifuges for another four or five months, it can raise the enrichment level to 90 percent — the level needed for a nuclear weapon.

In the arcane terminology of nuclear proliferation, that is known as a “breakout capability,” the ability to throw inspectors out of the country and then produce weapons-grade fuel, as North Korea did in 2003. . .
Read the entire story here. What to do next should not be a tough call. Europe needs to pony up to the bar and end its lucrative trade with Iran. It is that or war with Iran in the very near future.

Read More...

Saturday, March 31, 2007

The EU Disgraces Itself - There Must Be Consequences

Yesterday's acts by the EU will reverberate long into the future and with consequences that likely cannot be seen at this point. The UK asked for assistance from EU members in bringing pressure to bear on Iran to return the kidnapped 15 sailors and marines late of the HMS Cornwall. The EU placed their economic ties with Iran above the moral imperative of assisting Britain -- and even had the gall to lecture to the UK that this matter should not be taken to the point of confrontation -- no doubt because it would endanger their trade with Iran.

European foreign ministers failed last night to back Britain in a threat to freeze the €14 billion trade in exports to Iran, as the hostage crisis descended into a propaganda circus.

Tony Blair could only issue a new statement of disgust as Iran tormented him with another sailor’s video confession and a fresh letter from the young mother detainee.

A first written message from the Tehran Government offered some hope of a deal, but time is running out before the Iranian new year holiday ends and militant students and politicians return to business.

EU foreign ministers meeting in Germany called for the sailors to be freed but ruled out any tightening of lucrative export credit rules. The EU is Iran’s biggest trading partner. British officials are understood to have taken soundings on economic sanctions before the meeting but found few takers.

France, Iran’s second-largest EU trading partner, cautioned that further confrontation should be avoided. The Dutch said it was important not to risk a breakdown in dialogue.
Read the entire article here. One can make several observations from these acts. Indeed, one can even do so with relative calm and without the use of expletives -- but only after a long walk and a couple of glasses of 30 proof mead. The EU is beneath contempt.

1. The EU places their individual pecuniary interests above the interests of EU solidarity. There can be no future expectation of support by the EU for any particular member in any given scenario.

2. There is likely a huge element of anti-Americanism playing into the EU decision to rebuff the UK and it is motivated in part to punish the UK for allying with America. Anti-Americanism has been a hallmark of leftist politics throughout Old Europe, and the constant drumbeat of negativity has had its effect. For example, in Germany, more people consider the U.S. to be a greater threat to world peace then Iran and radical Islam.

3. The EU, which faces the same existential threat from Iran and radical Islam that the US and the UK face, is unwilling or unable to put its national security interests ahead of its short term pecuniary interests so long as the EU member nations feel safe under the umbrella of U.S. and U.K. protection.

4. The EU is willing to rely on the United States and the UK to provide and pay for their security while they feel free to reap economic benefit wherever possible, including trading with the the very nation that threatens their security.

5. The EU itself is wholly amoral with no sense of institutional loyalty. To motivate EU countries, one must offer them lucre or threaten their trade.

6. The EU member states cannot be counted upon as allies as a group.

7. In the wake of this rebuff, the UK will never go along with agreeing to an EU constitution. That is dead and buried.

8. In the wake of this rebuff, Angela Merkel's call for the melding of member state armies into a single EU military is beyond ridiculous.

9. It is unlikely that the UK will leave the EU over this incident - which is too bad really. However, there will be loud calls to consider it in the UK in the coming months and it will be an outside possibility.

10. The greed of the EU is blinding them to the ramifications of their refusal to support the UK. Their decision will embolden Iran and make the liklihood of this whole matter ending without the use of brute force far less likely. I seriously doubt that the UK will sit through a show trial of their troops without issuing an ultimatum on a date certain. George Bush is loyal. When Tony Blair asks, I have no doubt whatsoever that Bush will pull the trigger on the air craft carriers in the Gulf.

Having said all of that, the US can and should take actions to motivate Britain's fellow EU member states. A law on the books since the Clinton administration and recently revised under the rubric of The Iran Freedom Support Act allows for sanctions against companies, foreign and domestic, who trade in certain matters with Iran. No one has ever been sanctioned under it. Given the incredible greed and shortsightedness of the EU actions in rebuffing the UK, the U.S. should dust off this law immediately and announce its intentions to enforce the sanctions. It is likely the only coercive act the craven and despicalbe EU members could understand. There can be no more free rides when it comes to their own defense for the EU members.

Further, the U.S. should give serious consideration to whether it wishes to continue to be a member of NATO. We can certainly engage in treaties with those nations such as Britain and the members of new Europe who are willing to be loyal allies and pay for their share of their own defense. America's next military threat is coming from China, not Europe. Leaving NATO would allow us to free up significant military and command capability and refocus it to the true threats that we face in the future.

Hat Tip: Dinah Lord

Read More...

Friday, March 23, 2007

Bob Baer on the Defection of General Asgari

Former CIA agent Bob Baer weighs in on the importance of the defection of Iran's IRGC General Asgari. Baer highlights the importance and breadth of the information Asgari knows, and suggests that Asgari alone could become a PR tool to justify open war with Iran.

Normally, vanished intelligence officers barely merit one short paragraph on page eight. Asgari is different, though. As the IRGC commander in Lebanon in the late '80s and early '90s, he knows dirty secrets, secrets that could be used to justify going to war with Iran. Asgari was in the IRGC's chain of command when it was kidnapping and assassinating Westerners in Lebanon in the '80s. Asgari knows a lot about other IRGC-ordered, Lebanon-based terrorist attacks, including the October 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

As IRGC commander in Lebanon, Asgari was also one of Hizballah's stepfathers. In the late '80s and early '90s, he was Hizballah Secretary General's Hasan Nasrallah's primary Iranian contact, and certainly in a position now to provide evidence of Nasrallah's involvement in terrorism. Asgari was the primary Iranian contact for one of the world's most lethal and capable terrorists, 'Imad Fa'iz Mughniyah. Mughniyah is indicted in the U.S. for the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 and the murder of a Navy diver.

The bad news for Hizballah and Iran doesn't end there. Asgari would be able to tell us about Hizballah's secret military commanders, its overseas networks, and possibly its cells in the U.S. A friend close to Hizballah's leadership tells me Hizballah has gone to battle quarters, concluding Asgari's "kidnapping" is a prelude for its next round with Israel.

The more important question is what Asgari's possible defection would mean for this Administration's plans for Iran. Nothing is certain when it comes to Iran, but here's what I think we should look for: If Asgari resurfaces in the next couple months with a detailed, convincing bill of indictment against Iran and Hizballah (unlike Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's supposed confession), we should expect a confrontation. For instance, in the late '80s Hizballah, under IRGC orders, sent plastic explosives to secret cells around the world. Only one shipment was intercepted. The others are presumably still in place. If Asgari helps us dig one up, the Administration has a propaganda weapon it never had going into the Iraq war.

Read the entire post here. I do not agree with Baer that trotting out Asgari for pr at some point necessarilly presages open war with Iran. I would thing that the U.S. would use Asgari's informaton for as long as possible to direct and expand its covert operations to neuter Iran. Following that, I would see the U.S. using Asgari as a p.r. tool for any number of reasons short of open war, such as to justify why Europe needs to stop dealing with Iran and join in harsher sanctions. At any rate, it is clear that Iran is in a very uncomfortable spot at the moment.

Read More...

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

U.S. Unilateral Sanctions Are Having An Effect

It is somewhat ironic that, in all this rush to negotiate sanctions at the UN Security Council to deal with Iran, and before them North Korea, the most effective sanctions appear to be those we can - and have - taken unilaterally using the powers of the Patriot Act. David Ignatius explains in the Washington Post:

USA Patriot Act, which in Section 311 authorizes Treasury to designate foreign financial institutions that are of "primary money laundering concern." Once a foreign bank is so designated, it is effectively cut off from the U.S. financial system. It can't clear dollars; it can't have transactions with U.S. financial institutions; it can't have correspondent relationships with American banks.


Given that the U.S. banking system is at the heart of the world's economy, such sanctions, or the threat of sanctions against institutions that cooperate with the money laundering designee in spite thereof, have proven remarkably effective.

The new measures work thanks to the hidden power of globalization: Because all the circuits of the global financial system are inter-wired, the U.S. quarantine effectively extends to all major banks around the world. As Levey observed in a recent speech, the impact of this little-noticed provision of the Patriot Act "has been more powerful than many thought possible."

Treasury applied the new tools to North Korea in September 2005, when it put a bank in Macao called Banco Delta Asia on the blacklist. There was no legal proceeding -- just a notice in the Federal Register summarizing the evidence: Banco Delta Asia had been providing illicit financial services to North Korean government agencies and front companies for more than 20 years, according to the Treasury notice. The little Macao bank had helped the North Koreans feed counterfeit $100 bills into circulation, had laundered money from drug deals and had financed cigarette smuggling. North Korea "pays a fee to Banco Delta Asia for financial access to the banking system with little oversight or control," Treasury alleged.

Wham! The international payments window shut almost instantly on Pyongyang's pet bank. Transactions with U.S. entities stopped, but the Treasury announcement also put other countries on notice to beware of Banco Delta Asia. The Macao banking authorities, realizing that they needed the oxygen of the international financial system to survive, took regulatory action on their own and froze the bank's roughly $24 million in North Korean assets. And around Asia, banks began looking for possible links to North Korean front companies -- and shutting them down.

A similar financial squeeze is being applied to Iran. Here again, the impact has come from the way private financial institutions have reacted to public pressure from Treasury. "As banks do their risk-reward analysis, they must now take into account the very serious risk of doing business in Iran, and what the risks would be if they were found to be part of a terrorist or proliferation transaction," says Kimmitt.

Treasury began squeezing Iran last September, when it accused Bank Saderat, one of the largest government-owned banks, of financing terrorism by funneling $50 million to Hezbollah and Hamas since 2001. The Treasury order cut the bank off from any access to the U.S financial system, direct or indirect. A similar ban was imposed in January on Bank Sepah, which Treasury alleged was a key intermediary for Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization, the agency that oversees the country's ballistic missile program.

Read the whole story.

Read More...

Sunday, February 25, 2007

HEZBOLLAH PREPARES FOR NEXT WAR

Hezbollah is in the midst of rearmng, compliments of Iran, and is preparing for another round of hostilities against Israel. Hezbollah now occupies the hills and valley's north of the U.N. positions on the Lebanon-Israel border from Sheba Farms and across to the sea.


It is widely suspected that Iran is the principal supplier of this hardware and that Syria is actively allowing these weapons to be transported across its borders. Hezbollah could, therefore, be in a position by this summer in which it could fire missiles over the land south of the Litani river, which is controlled by the UN force, and strike at Israeli civilians. The domestic pressure on Israel to respond by bombing would be huge.

The international tension which a fresh round of conflict here would provoke may suit the Iranian leadership. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared yesterday that Iran’s nuclear programme involved “no reverse gear” just as representatives of the permanent five members of the UN Security Council prepare to meet in London to discuss additional sanctions against Tehran. If past form is any indication, Iran will try to play for time by exploiting its capacity to cause trouble in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority. It is likely to engage in those tactics yet again.


Read the whole story and here. This was both expected and unfortunate. It may actually place Israel in a very difficult position. If Hezbollah launches rocket attacks from behind the U.N. buffer, which they surely will, Israel will be at a strategic disadvantage. They will of course be able to respond with air and indirect fire, but it would seem that a push by troops on the ground will be greatly complicated by the buffer zone and U.N. forces. I think Iran will play the Hezbollah card once again, but precisely when is the question.

Read More...

HOW SERIOUS IS THE IRANIAN THREAT TO SUNNI STATES?

Apparently serious in the extreme. Harretz is reporting that at least three Gulf states, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, have consented to allow Israel to fly through their airspace enroute to Iran. Turkey is apparently also going to follow suit, though I would imagine that would be for U.S. Air Force access.

That brings up a fascinating question. If the Sunni majority states come under a greater threat from Iran, will they turn to Israel for substantive help? What would Israel ask in return? Will hell ever unfreeze in the aftermath? This could be the law of unintended consequences in the extreme.

Hattip: Drudge

Read More...

WHY DOES THE WORLD HATE THE US?

Distinguished Prof. Niall Ferguson pens a provocative article discussing who, according to research polls, has a dislike for the United States. His answer -- just about the whole world. His assessment -- a lot of it is quite natural and has to do with the U.S. simply being the biggest kid on the block.

I would add that much of the West is dominated by political parties and a press that is mildly to significantly left of center with a strong secular and pacifistic bent to all of it. America's politics tend to center right, and are often twinged with a religious flavor that makes the Europeans cringe. Add to this that we present no threat to these countries, and what you get is a high degree of scorn heaped upon the U.S. with no counterbalancing response.

To get a good feel for this, I would suggest occasionally perusing David's Miedienkritik, a site which does a yeoman's job of documenting the excesses of anti-Americanism we face in Germany. In Britain, the anti-U.S. sentiment is even easier to see. Just read the opinion pieces and comments thereto in The Guardian and articles on the BBC -- where one of today's headlines is "Iraq Crackdown Doomed to Fail." You might also want to look at the internet site Biased BBC. If you prefer book form, you might want to read While Europe Slept by Bruce Bawer, which documents the same phenomenon in the context of the influx into Europe of radical Islamists.

In the rest of the world, particularly that dominated by salafi Islam, it is no surprise that we are hated by a radicalized populace and their intelligentsia. And not surprisingly, elsewhere in the Middle East, our highest poll numbers are found among rank and file Iranians. I say not surprisingly because the theocrats in power have abused their populace, made a train wreck of their economy, and secularized a large portion of the populace.

At any rate, I find all of this so frustrating mainly because we face a series of threats - the threat posed by radical Islam, the threat posed by Venezuela and Russia which have become bellicose dictatorships, and the threat posed by China that is quite rapidly developing military capabilities to challenge the West -- often with stolen or purchased U.S. technology. America, while the largest and richest country, has neither the population base nor so large an economy that we could face down each of those threats alone. And unfortunately, it would appear that the continental European powers are too petty and insular to take a realistic assessment of the current threats they and we face, and to develop appropriate strategies.

For example, all of Europe is threatened today by the march of radical Islam, whether Shia or Sunni. Yet, Germany and Italy have developed potentially lucrative economic ties with the mullahs of Iran. Consequently, it is they who apparently are voicing opposition to an immediate strengthening of sanctions against Iran. Is that really where their long term interests lie? Can they comfort themselves by relying on the U.S. and the U.K. to protect them while at the same time justifying their actions by pointing to the stupidity and aggressiveness of Americans? Or what of France's Chirac, an amoral thorn in the West's side who has long publicly advocated that Europe make a complete break with the U.S. and form a wholly European power. Why would they do that -- well, simply because Chirac sees that as a path to the return of the glory of France. Is it in France or Europe's long term best interest? I think clearly not. But you tell me?

Read More...

Saturday, February 24, 2007

WHAT SCARES IRANS MULLAHS?

Abbas Milani, the director of Iranian studies at Stanford, answers:

After a meeting with the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader’s chief foreign policy adviser, Ali Akbar Velayati, declared last week that suspending uranium enrichment is not a red line for the regime — in other words, the mullahs might be ready to agree to some kind of a suspension. . . .

The mullahs are keen on damage control on another front as well. After his meeting with Ayatollah Khamenei, Mr. Velayati announced that the Holocaust is a fact of history and chastised those who question its reality. Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator, also declared the Holocaust a “historical matter” to be discussed by scholars (and not, he implied, by ignorant politicians). In short, there is a new willingness among the Iranian political elite to avoid the rhetoric of confrontation and to negotiate.
. . . .
The mullahs have historically shown an unfailing ability to smell out and, when pragmatic, succumb to credible power in their foes. Indeed, the presence of the American ships has helped encourage them to negotiate. But no less clear is the fact that the mullahs’ attitude change began in late December, when the United Nations Security Council finally passed a resolution against the regime in Tehran.

The passage of the resolution hastened the demise of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s confrontational approach to the West. And the falling price of oil, leading to declining revenues for the regime, magnified the resolution’s economic impact. Top leaders of the Islamic Republic, from Ayatollah Khamenei to Mr. Rafsanjani, have made it clear that they consider sanctions a serious threat . . .

I agree with the basic analysis. However, I think these few bon mots are the mullahs' attempt to manipulate the West into reopening negotiations without more economic sanctions. And as I noted in another post, there is a good probability that many nations, motivated by their own profit margin, will quite cynically take them up on the offer.

Much more pressure will need to be applied before Iran stops its march towards a nuclear arsenal. Whether this will ultimately end in a military confrontation is, I think, critically dependent on the ability of the West to impose meaningful sanctions outside of the Security Council and to do so in the near future.

Read More...

Friday, February 23, 2007

DEATH TO AMERICA -- THE IRANIAN PROBLEM RATCHETS UP

The MSM documents that Iran has failed to comply with UN resolutions requiring it to cease its nuclear production. The best of the articles comes from the Washington Post:


Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities," the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported. The report also said that Iran "has not agreed" to permit sufficient scrutiny of its nuclear program as required to determine whether it is pursuing nuclear weapons. "Iran has not agreed to any of the required transparency measures, which are essential for the clarification of certain aspects of the scope and nature of its nuclear program," the six-page report said.

The IAEA said Iran has not been forthcoming in its response to documents obtained by U.S. intelligence indicating that Iran was trying to build a missile to accommodate a nuclear warhead and constructing a covert facility to convert uranium.


Read the entire story.

The ball is again in our court. Our next move is dependent on how our government assesses the threat of a nuclear armed Iran.

As a threshold matter, no one, not Harry Reid, not Nancy Pelosi, not Joe Biden, not Jacques Chirac, and not even Jack "retreat to Okinawa" Murtha -- hmmm, scratch that, maybe only Jack Murtha -- can possibly believe that Iran's nuclear activities are intended for anything other then building atomic weapons.

Two, we know that Iran is a theocratic police state that, to quote Amir Taheri, seeks to see its religion . . . transformed into a political ideology [that can be used throughout the Middle East as] an instrument of power for the ruling clergy." It is aggressively expansionist.

Three, the unique brand of Shiaism practiced in Iran is a triumphalist religion that, as interpreted under the ageis of Khomeinism, glorifies death and suicidal actions, seeing in them "martyrdom" that is a sure ticket to particularly earthly delights in heaven (for the males, at least). And there are very many true believers in the Shia world. How many tens of thousands of teenage boys drank the Kool Aid offered by Khomeini, took the plastic key made in Taiwan that Khomeini told them was the key to heaven, and then marched weaponless across the sands of Iraq to clear minefields and to die charging Iraqi positions during the Iran-Iraq War?

It is clear that true believers in Khomeini's Shiaism do not operate from the same set of rational principals that protected us during the cold war -- i.e., MAD, the concept of mutually assured destruction. Bernard Lewis, the preeminent Middle East scholar in America, expounded upon this in an article some months ago:

A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook, is revealing. "I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another's hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours."

In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead--hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.


Coupled with this mindset, we know that the Iranian government has no moral qualms with murder and that the government is unconcerned with collateral damage, whether it be Christian, Jew, or even Islamic blood spilled. A common refrain is that Allah will sort them out in Heaven.

So if the mullahs of Iran get nuclear weapons, what is the likelihood that they will use them and how would they use them? The permutations and scenarios are endless. But clearly, no one can possibly expect the theocracy in Iran to lessen their aggression or bellicosity once they have nuclear weapons. Quite the opposite. Thus they will become even more of a threat to their neighbors and to the Western world. Several possible scenarios and their probability are discussed in detail here, including:
Abdullah and Mubarak, two of the most prominent Sunni leaders, have, along with senior Saudi officials, evoked the specter of a new Middle East divided along sectarian lines. It would set the ­long-­downtrodden Shia against their traditional Sunni masters, rulers, and landlords. If the first battlefield was Iraq, the two leaders suggested, the next would be the ­oil-endowed regions of the Persian Gulf, southern Iraq, and Azerbaijan, where Shia happen to live. In this scenario, the ayatollahs of Shiite Iran could then secure control of the Iraqi, Saudi, and Caspian oil and gas fields by placing them under the protection of their own nuclear arsenal, thus establishing the first Islamic state to achieve great-power status since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in
1918.

Given the clear threat, it is impossible to see how we could allow the mullahs in Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Failure to make the tough decisions now will only increase exponentially the potential for war and casualties on a grand scale later.

That does not mean that we should act militarily now. Our window for military action against Iran -- without having to worry about a nightmare scenario such as described above -- is between one to five years. There is no question that we would decisively win such a confrontation, but the costs would be dear. Further, if we only engaged in an air strike to "set back the clock" on Iran’s nuclear development while leaving theocracy intact, that could prove very problematic. It raises a significant possibility of imbuing a nationalism among Iranians that is now absent and, with the population backing them, there is no doubt that Iran would become very aggressive in attacking American and Western interests world-wide.

So our aim must be to exploit Iran’s weaknesses by other means. There are many. Twenty-eight years of theocratic rule has alienated and secularized a large portion of the population. There is wide scale unemployment and very high inflation, As one commentator has described it:
Despite ample natural resources, Iran continues to suffer double-digit rates of inflation and unemployment. A million young Iranians enter the job market every year, but the economy produces less than half that many jobs. The clerics' penchant for centralization has bred an inefficient command economy with a bloated bureaucracy. Extensive subsidies for basic commodities, such as wheat and gasoline, waste tens of billions of dollars but do little to alleviate poverty. Massive foundations that are philanthropic only in name monopolize key sectors of the economy, operating with little competition, regulation, or taxation. Inefficient state-owned enterprises drain the government budget, and a vast gray market of commercial entities has been spun off from government ministries. The recent increase in oil prices is not a long-term solution to Iran's woes; the economy's flaws run much too deep. Twenty-five years after Iran's revolution pledged to deliver a more just society, the Islamic Republic has spawned an economy that benefits only an elite group of clerics and their cronies and stifles private enterprise.

And therein is Iran’s Achilles heel. Indeed, the relatively mild sanctions that we have already placed upon Iran are showing fault lines in the theocracy. What Iran seeks to do now is forestall any further actions. In the past two weeks, we have seen Iran profess a renewed interest in talks and a ratcheting down of the bellicosity:

[On February 11] Ali Larijani, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, briefly met with European diplomats for the first time since talks collapsed in September and said Iran was willing to return to formal discussions.
. . . .
Larijani also said Iran was a force for regional stability in the Middle East and had no designs on any of its neighbors, including Iraq and Israel. "We pose no threat, and if we are conducting nuclear research and development, we are no threat to Israel," he said.

And two days ago, as described by Powerline, there was a "breathless" report on CNN about

. . . a "top government official" of Iran--identity, unfortunately, unknown--and reports that Iranian officials, at least those who don't dare divulge their identities, are hungry for good relations with the U.S.:

"Natural allies," this official said.

It was a surprising choice of words considering the barbs Washington and Tehran have been trading of late.

"We are not after conflict. We are not after crisis. We are not after war," said this official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "But we don't know whether the same is true in the U.S. or not. If the same is true on the U.S. side, the first step must be to end this vicious cycle that can lead to
dangerous action -- war."

This anonymous, but presumably very powerful, Iranian assured Ms. Amanpour that the desire for peace with the U.S. goes to the very top of the Iranian hierarchy: He confided that what he was telling me was not shared by all in the Iranian government, but it was endorsed so high up in the religious leadership that he felt confident spelling out the rationale.

"This view is not off the streets. It's not the reformist view and it's not even the view of the whole government," he replied.

But he insisted he was describing the thinking at the highest levels of the religious leadership -- the center of decision-making power in Iran.

I asked whether he meant Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself.

"Yes," he said..


Does anyone believe this? (Mr. Murtha, please put your hand down)

These actions are so obviously disingenuous as to be laughable. The clear purpose of these acts is to exploit the two major weaknesses of the West. One, a largely amoral and pacifistic Europe, usually led by France’s Chirac, whose professions of motivation by high principles is quite literally always naught but smoke to hide a profit motive that might be mined while America foots the bill with money and blood. Two, a Democratic party now in power that is equally amoral and almost as spineless, and whose profession of motivation by high principles is predicated on attaining partisan political advantage.

Europe has had years of talks with Iran, which we have fully supported, including our offer of a package of economic incentives that was rejected only because Iran’s true objective is a nuclear arsenal. Further talks with Iran, absent significant punitive actions, would be not only useless, but counterproductive. What Iran seeks at this point is to buy time – time to complete their weapons program; time to patch the numerous leaks in the dam of their floundering economy; time to wait until George Bush leaves office; and, ultimately, time to gain a position of advantage over the West.

Yet, it would seem that Iran’s last minute gambit is already paying dividends. Russia and China are, in essence, allies of Iran in this matter – and have no doubt it is with the intention of weakening the United States strategically while gaining a financial advantage. They are stabbing us in the chest, not the back. The target on our back is reserved for the Europeans who are already grabbing for the knife:

A senior European diplomat said it is not a foregone conclusion that "we will go down the sanctions lane," adding: "There are quite a number of European Union countries who believe we should go easy because there seems to be an opening on the Iranian side."
So what to do? One, Bush needs to publicly and forcefully put the military option back on the table if for naught else then to impress upon all parties – mostly immediately our "allies" – that it is now time to impose harsh sanctions before the military option is the only one left. Now is not the time for any mixed signals. Iran and the Democrats must be disabused of any belief that we will quietly acquiesce to Iran's attainment of nuclear weapons. Two, we need to adopt an aggressive policy of destabilizing Iran’s theocracy with the intent of achieving regime change. Clearly Iran can make much trouble for us in Iraq, but we need to quickly get to the point that we can go one better, both in Iran and Iraq. Glen Reynolds is spot on in his calls for targeted covert action against Iranian high value targets, and it needs to happen both in Iraq and Iran. Lastly, Amir Taheri, a brilliant Iranian author, has written very thorough article on the how and why of regime change in Iran. Rather then repeat him, I urge you to read this in full.

Read More...

 

View My Stats