Yesterday, President Obama called a small group of journalists into the White House to talk about Iran. According to the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, Obama’s agenda was to signal Iran that the United States might “accept a deal that allows Iran to maintain its civilian nuclear program, so long as Iran provides ‘confidence-building measures’ to verify that it is not building a bomb”. The President said that his Administration is prepared to lay out “a clear set of steps that we would consider sufficient to show that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons”. The President’s vision for renewed diplomacy with Tehran also included a proposal for talks on Afghanistan, where the two sides “have a ‘mutual interest’ in fighting the Taliban”.
That the President feels he must call in Western journalists to signal Tehran is a sad commentary on the Obama Administration’s failure to develop a discreet and reliable channel through which to communicate with Iranian leaders. Ignatius reminds us that Obama “sent two secret letters” last year to the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But Obama also opted not to respond to a congratulatory letter sent to him after the 2008 U.S. presidential election by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad—a letter which Ahmadinejad has told us was “unprecedented” and “not easy to get done” on his side. In that context, Obama’s letters to Khamenei were seen in Tehran as an attempt to go “over the head” of Iran’s elected President—another iteration, in a failed pattern dating to Ronald Reagan’s Iran-contra scandal, of U.S. administrations trying to create channels to individual Iranian leaders rather than dealing with the Islamic Republic as a system. This amused neither Khamenei nor Ahmadinejad.
Furthermore, it is not clear that the Iranians will receive whatever signal the President is trying to send through his meeting with a group of Western journalists. It seems that not all the journalists got the signal. While Ignatius emphasizes Obama’s strategic depth and genuine interest in a peaceful nuclear settlement, The Economist’s Peter David reports that Obama “unveiled no new policy” and began “to talk more about the other unspecified ‘options on the table’”. Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic thinks the real point was to send a message—to non-Iranian international and U.S. domestic audiences—that “Obama’s policy of engagement joined with sanctions is having the desired effect of isolating Iran from the international community” and that it will be at least a year before Tehran comes close to even a theoretically plausible nuclear “breakout” capability. Ambinder’s colleague, Jeffrey Goldberg, “got the sense that this session represented something of a victory lap for [Obama’s] national security team”. (Goldberg’s presence in the briefing suggests to us that at least part of the Administration’s agenda was to send reassuring messages to Israel and pro-Israel constituencies in the United States.)
Ignatius and several other attendees report that the President referred to “rumblings” the Administration is picking up that new sanctions are having a political effect in Iran. A senior Administration official noted specifically the bazaar strike last month as an example. But this is another sad indicator of how badly informed the Administration’s analysis of Iranian domestic developments is. The bazaar strike—which was, effectively, a repeat of a similar episode in 2008—was a largely successful effort by a traditional business elite to resist the imposition of additional taxes by the Iranian government (something that the IMF is recommending). It was not in any way a signal that the bazaaris are now, as a result of sanctions, allied to what is left of the Green movement.
But, apart from the Administration’s maladroit handling of its diplomatic exchanges with Tehran, poor grasp of on-the-ground realities in Iran, and mixed messaging, it is important to consider the substance of what the President said. Obama’s ideas about engaging the Islamic Republic are not bad, at a relatively high level of generalization. They are certainly much better than those of most of the cabinet- and sub-cabinet-level officials he has appointed to work on Iran policy. But, as in the past, the real question is whether Obama is ready to expend political capital, assume political risks, and take hard policy decisions to make his ideas effective vis-à-vis Tehran. To date, Obama has not been prepared to do so, and that—not Iranian “intransigence” or purported internal divisions—is the real reason his efforts at engagement have not borne fruit.
On the nuclear front, the key issue is whether the President’s severely hedged openness to a deal that might allow Tehran “to maintain its civilian nuclear program” includes a willingness to accept Iran moving ahead with internationally safeguarded uranium enrichment on its own territory. In advance of renewed nuclear talks, which seem likely to start next month, senior Iranian officials say that Tehran is prepared to discontinue enriching uranium at the nearly-20 percent level required to fabricate fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR)—a thoroughly safeguarded facility in the middle of Tehran that produces medical isotopes—if the international community guarantees the provision of new fuel for the TRR and accepts the Joint Declaration on nuclear matters that Iran negotiated with Brazil and Turkey in May.
There is nothing new in these Iranian positions—which are certainly not the product of intensified international, U.S., and European sanctions. Since the Iranians first raised the TRR issue last spring, they have always linked their pursuit of enrichment to the near-20 percent level to the international community’s failure to come through, in a credible and timely way, to help Tehran refuel the TRR. Iran accepted the idea of “swapping” a significant part of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU, enriched only to 3-4 percent) for new fuel for the TRR—an idea originated by the Obama Administration and formalized last fall by the International Atomic Energy Agency’s then-director, Mohammed El Baradei. But, when the Iranians asked to negotiate particular details of the plan, the Obama Administration-under domestic and Israeli pressure—turned Baradei’s proposal into a “take it or leave it” proposition, something that Baradei himself says should not have been done, see here. By not bargaining with Iran, the United States handed Tehran the perfect justification to start enriching to higher levels—which is precisely what Tehran did, starting in February 2010.
By the time that Brazil and Turkey stepped up their diplomatic efforts with Iran over the TRR issue earlier this year, the Administration had already decided to keep previous commitments extracted from it by Israel and pro-Israel interest groups in Washington to move ahead with a new UN sanctions resolution. The Administration cynically insisted that Brazil and Turkey include provisions in any deal they might broker with Tehran which U.S. officials assumed would trigger an Iranian rejection; some Administration officials calculated that, when the Brazilians and Turks “struck out” in Tehran, it would be possible to leverage them into supporting new sanctions in the Security Council. Ultimately, of course, the Iranians accepted the terms Obama spelled out in a letter to his Brazilian counterpart in April 2010, see here; it was the Obama Administration that reneged on the TRR deal, so that it could accelerate work on a new sanctions resolution that would finally be adopted in June.
Even against this backdrop, Tehran continues to say that it would stop enriching at higher levels if it is guaranteed new fuel for the TRR—and the United States and its partners accept the Joint Declaration Iranian officials negotiated with Brazil and Turkey in May. This latter point underscores the issue of enrichment—at the lower, 3-4 percent level—as the heart of the matter. The Iran-Turkey-Brazil deal includes, as its first substantive item, a forthright acknowledgement that the Islamic Republic has the “right” to “develop research, production and use of nuclear energy (as well as nuclear fuel cycle including enrichment activities) for peaceful purposes without discrimination”.
In the face of multiple UN Security Council resolutions demanding that the Islamic Republic suspend all uranium enrichment, Tehran wants its right to enrich acknowledged as an essential condition for progress toward a larger nuclear deal. In our conversations with them, Iranian officials have consistently indicated that acceptance of safeguarded enrichment in Iran would open up possibilities for cooperative solutions to other contentious points in the Islamic Republic’s nuclear diplomacy with the world’s major powers—including ratification and implementation of the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Obama Administration remains internally divided on the enrichment issue. If President Obama is finally prepared to show real leadership on this issue and accept safeguarded enrichment in Iran, he can get a nuclear deal that addresses the proliferation concerns associated with Iran’s fuel cycle activities and put relations with the Islamic Republic on a more positive trajectory. If he does not, Obama will blow yet another opportunity for strategically consequential diplomacy with Tehran.
On Afghanistan, the key question is whether President Obama is really willing to take the steps necessary to show Iran that its interests in Afghanistan are, in fact, still aligned with those of the United States. Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Tehran cooperated with the United States in Afghanistan, in part, to prompt Washington to reconsider its longstanding hostility toward the Islamic Republic. But Tehran also cooperated because it accepted U.S. representations that Washington wanted an independent and stable Afghanistan that would not be hostile to Iran. (Hillary Mann Leverett was one of a small number of U.S. officials engaged in ongoing discussions with Iranian counterparts about how to deal with Afghanistan and Al-Qa’ida during this period.)
Now that the Obama Administration is acquiescing to Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s efforts to negotiate power-sharing arrangements with the Taliban—as a way of facilitating the draw-down of U.S. forces—Tehran no longer credits Washington with either good intentions or strategic competence in Afghanistan. Obama and his advisers seem not to grasp how much the strategic situation in Afghanistan has shifted, from Tehran’s point of view, since the first 18 months after 9/11. Today, Obama will have to take affirmative steps to convince Iranian policymakers that he does not intend to turn over Afghanistan to the strongly anti-Iranian Taliban and its chief external backers, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia—two of Iran’s most important regional rivals. Otherwise, Afghanistan is likely to become a point of increasing tension between Washington and Tehran—not an arena for cooperation.
On a positive note, Obama’s Iran briefing at least affirms that he does not believe there is any reason, in the near-to-medium term, for a military confrontation. But it also provides no indication that Obama has a genuinely substantive plan to put U.S.-Iranian relations on a more stable and strategically productive footing.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
I posted a comment which has been ‘awaiting moderation’ since August 7. It is now August 17. Why?
imho,
It is important to remember that the Clinton administration achieved substantial cuts in US “defence” spending. The idiotic US “response” to the 9/11 attacks included a virtual doubling of the “defence” budget – - which in fact erodes American strength.
G W Bush was an arrogant ignoramus and his grossly incompetent National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice, had virtually no understanding of the history and cultures of the Middle East. I think they were both duped. Dick Cheney went to Langley numerous times to make sure important CIA intelligence showing Iraq had no WMD and posed no threat to the US, was kept out of the White House. He was creating the “deniablity” needed for his co-conspirators who set up the illegal invasion of Iraq.
imho,
Yes, of course: Iran sought a complete resolution of its differences with the US. And Israel blocked it.
After “9/11″, the US knew it had to pull its forces out of the Saudi bases (foolishly retained after the Gulf war). Iraq was seen as a good site for replacement bases.
The US in fact is eroding its strength, with its insane global military presence and endless wars in the greater Middle East promoted relentlessly by the Israel lobby and especially the neocons. Vladimir Putin says the Soviet Union helped to cause its own collapse by idiotic spending on armaments etc.
The Iraq War was almost entirely a scheme to “protect” Israel, meaning to enable Israel to keep the West Bank and perhaps the Golan Heights, relying on the US war machine (and the foolish, ignorant American taxpayers).
James Canning:
Regarding that letter, I have read numerous reports on MSM and firmly believe that it was true because it wasn’t the first and the last time. Even at the beginning of this whole nuclear affair, Iran wanted to talk about everything, not just the nuclear enrichment (which is used just as a card in the negotiation table), from security, normal relations with US, entering WTO, etc. Iranians don’t give a damn to palestinian cause. They always did business with Israel even in the middle of their war with Irak while Khomeiny was alive and used to call US and Israel, great and little satan respectively. Just to say that interests and power are above any ideology. This think is just a tool to make people believe one way or another.
My point is, Bibi needs Ahmadi to stay in power and vice versa, the same way, Pentagon needed Soviet Unions to make weapon and to get stronger and the same way it needs Al Qaeda to send american soldiers (or should I say private security contractors aka mercenaries) and build military bases all around the world. So, why should all this stop ? just to let people live in peace and prosperity ? Na! I wonder if the whole Israel/Palestine case isn’t the same kind of interests and power game. Will Israel continue to receive the huge annual american aid, money and technology if all this stops one day ?
James, you say:
“The US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have little or nothing to do with encircling Iran. The neocons want a permanent US military presence in Iraq to “protect” Israel. Getting the permanent bases was part of the reason for the invasion. The assertions about WMD were known to be false by Dick Cheney’s gang, but it is possible G W Bush was duped”
Iran is one big obstacle on the road to China. Permanent bases are not a goal per se but the means to project power as far as the Empire wants. When Bush was president, the neocons wrote something called The New American Century something (sorry I don’t remember the exact term) in which they officialized preemptive attack as a legitimate tool in their military doctrine as well as the use of nuclear bombs. It can easily be found on Internet. The main point written there was that after the collapse of the soviet union the US should prevent at all cost, any country rising as a new power and no nation should be allowed to approach the military level of the ex soviets.
I don’t think the military presence in Irak was to protect Israel (they don’t need it), but to have an eye on Iran, on Iraki oil fields, a base near Caucasia and a kind of replacement for Saoudi in case that country falls apart.
It is not so important to know if Bush knew or was duped about Irak’s non existent WMD (although I can’t imagine a man becoming president of US has no idea what is all about). The american policy is not written by one man so powerful he can be. That is rather the other way: a man become president in order to advance american/corporate agenda written for him. The proof is that nothing change between Democrats and Republicans. These are just 2 flavors doing the same foreign policy in two different ways, policies that are established in CFR, Trilateral Commission and other circles and think tanks.
fyi:
I agree with you that Russia and China want a status quo in Iran without a war, so their commerce with Iran keep going and in the same time Iran is pushed behind a wall needing their political and economical support (I’m not sure for other countries you cited). This was exactly the case in the first Gulf war (Bush senior’s) with France, Russia and a number of other countries doing business with Irak at the time. However, when the american war machine was in route, those countries took the ship against Irak so they could hope to get a piece of pie after the war (knowing well the outcome). Well, it turned out that it wasn’t the case as both France and Russia were deprived of any real contract but just small goodies that oncle Sam was willing to throw at them like dogs begging for a bone.
That was part of the reasons France didn’t get along for the 2nd Gulf war. UK did it for the same reason and because they couldn’t convince Bush junior not to do it.
The point is the countries supporting Iran and specially Russia will do nothing and can’t do anything if the US begins a war with Iran. All they try is to maintain a status quo which is in their benefit.
The game is one of survival for Iran as a regional power as well as for the Empire. Ironically, the Empire can’t survive if it doesn’t expand and it will collapse once it is too expanded. However at that point, will there be any US of A or will it change to United Nations of planet Earth. Already, you can see how money matters the most, as american corporates (if we can still call them american) and banks keep making money with no qualms no matter the cost for american people losing their jobs and homes.
Imho,
The US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have little or nothing to do with encircling Iran. The neocons want a permanent US military presence in Iraq to “protect” Israel. Getting the permanent bases was part of the reason for the invasion. The assertions about WMD were known to be false by Dick Cheney’s gang, but it is possible G W Bush was duped.
imho,
You mention a letter sent by Iran, to Condoleezza Rice, regarding a “grand bargain” that Rice claims never to have seen. This is very interesting. Two warnings were sent to Rice in October 2002, from intelligence source, informing her that the claims Iraq had sought uranium from Niger were very weak and suspect. The claim ended up in Bush’s State of the Union address in 2003 (after being laundered or camouflaged, by not mentioning Niger specifically and by attributing the claim to “British intelligence”. In fact, the CIA knew the claim was bogus years earlier!
Israel demanded that, as part of any “grand bargain” between the US and Iran, that Iran stop the Palestinian suicide bombers who were attacking Israeli targets within the West Bank. Rice probably did not want to be seen as such an obvious stooge of Israel, in the way she performed her duties. So, she might have lied about not seeing the letter, or arranged for it not to be shown to her (for deniability).
imho:
I think you are right in the aims.
And I also think that an undfeated Iran is in the strategic interests of a number of states: Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Turkey, Japan, and even our humanitarian friends in EU.
US is playing a game whose parameters changed 10 years ago.
But they will have to try to win, don’t they?
You rightly mentioned a number of times Iranians tried to appease tensions with US and even lay the ground for a renewed relationship: Ahmadinejad’s congratulation letter, rejecting swap deal (a previously US accepted deal) with Brazil and Turkey, Iran cooperation with US in Afghanistan (and the resulting axis of devil speech by Bush, and you forgot one: when Iran sent a letter to US that supposedly never arrived in the hands of Condolleza Rice for a grand bargain in which Iran accepted nearly everything US wanted including recognition if Israel, cutting support from Hamas and Hezbollah, giving up on uranium enrichment, all in exchange for one thing: US security guarantee and recognition of Iran as a regional power. All of these have been rejected; why ?
But I don’t understand when you say:
1/ “On Afghanistan, the key question is whether President Obama is really willing to take the steps necessary to show Iran that its interests in Afghanistan are, in fact, still aligned with those of the United States”
It was Iran who first tried to show they have shared interests in Afghanistan; so why Obama would try to make things clear for Iranians who already know this?!
2/ “That the President feels he must call in Western journalists to signal Tehran is a sad commentary on the Obama Administration’s failure to develop a discreet and reliable channel through which to communicate with Iranian leaders”
This is just a public relation exercise in front of world media. Everybody knows that if they want to make a deal they don’t need journalists, they already have the required channels.
For all the discussions I had with Iranians, let me tell you something about them. They generally believe that real policies and actions are decided behind closed doors and they are right. You talk about US politicians as brainless cows that keep failing on opportunities since THIRTY YEARS with Iran!!! No, those elites know what they want, it is a long term policy with regards to Iran. Nuclear enrichment is a no problem. Terrifying world with nuclear mullah wiping Israel off the map is part of the game so the people believe Iran is a danger worth a confrontation. The anti missile bases in Poland and Czec Republic to confront Iranian missiles were really laughable.
The fact is Iran is encircled with US troops and there is a reason for that (I cannot believe American politicians and military are all stupid), they’re not leaving the ME soon. The Iranian power must be checked. That’s all. One can wonder why the US don’t try to realign Iran with a grand bargain. The only answer I can imagine is that they are some countries with which US has to negotiate to some extent in world affairs (although these countries are also subject to US pressure in some other ways). And they are countries the US want to dictate to. Iran is part of the second group. The word deal is meaningless here. In other words Iran is with US or against US to use the Bush’s words. The bankers robbed nearly every nations on earth and they want more, Venezuela, Iran, and all the remaining nations with government-ruled central banks who are defying the “international system” and the “international community” (in their words) will get rid of them sooner or later. Call it conspiracy theories or what you want but I prefer this (which at least has some logic on it) than all the bullshits found on MSM today with a sens of insulting people’s intelligence.
Michael Kerwick,
Great post. You have summed up nicely why any use of nukes against Iran would truly be insane.
The American warmongers should read some history. I suggest a review of the events that led directly to the destruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The assassination of Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo gave the Austrian General Staff a pretext for launching a war to crush Serbia. The Austrian archduke had been a leading opponent of such a war, and he believed that even crushing Serbia would only cause more problems than it solved – - not to mention the risk Austria itself would be destroyed in such a war. Which of course is what transpired.
In 2002 a Mr Steinhausler of the Stamford Data Base on Nuclear Smuggling, Theft and Orphan Radiation Sources said that:
“Many countries don’t even have a central register of radioactive materials. If they don’t know what they have have, they don’t know what they lost.”
In 1992 Frankfurt’s Chief Prosecutor said that 20 Kg of weapons grade Uranium 235 was unaccounted for.
In Georgia in 2002 sources say that as much as 2 Kg of 90% grade U-235 was missing.
1998 report that 170 Kg of enriched uranium was missing from the UK’s Dounreay plant. Enough to make a dozen bombs.
A retired General Alexander Lebed, Russia’s former security chief, asserted that 82 out of 132 portable nuclear bombs are missing and they were capable of killing up to 100,000 people. They weighed under 100 pounds and fitted into a suitcase measuring 60 x 40 x 20 Cms.
China searches for eight kg(17 pounds) of missing radioactive material. The four men detained claimed that it had been lost because it had been moved around so much between prospective buyers.
With the collapse of Hitlers Germany the best brains went to the highest bidder. The same has happened with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
There will be no nuclear attack on Iran because the high risk of blow back.
rfjk,
The Christian Palestinians have left Israel/Palestine to a greater degree, since 1948 and 1967, than the Muslims. Both groups face discrimination, within the June 1, 1967 borders and in the West Bank. As you note.
I would agree Israel is ultimately doomed as a “Jewish” state, if Israel fails to get out of the West Bank. Ironically, possibly the greatest threat to Israel’s long-term stability comes from idiot “supporters” of Israel in the US who have done their best to prevent an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank (and the Golan Heights).
I continue to see the “two-state” solution as best, provided Israel gets out of the West Bank entirely. And stays out.
rfjk:
“I’m referring to everything post 1948. Without a strong patron (Russians, French, US) to shelter them, the Israeli state would have been kaput not long after their invasion of Palestine.”
Not so. The only got themselves an unwilling “patron” in 1968, after they had acquired a few nukes for themselves, at which point they no longer actually needed a patron. The nukes are Israel’s oil, which keep the US on message.
“Once Palestinians and Israeli/Arabs get it into their heads the 2 state gig is finished, they will begin fighting for their civil liberties and rights within a greater Israel”
They’re not under any illusions. It’s the US that needs to get this straight, along with the hopelessly inconsequential Abbas and his pointless negotiating sidekicks.
James Canning
What Brits “adamantly oppose” now will be a totally different story after the fighting starts.
I’m referring to everything post 1948. Without a strong patron (Russians, French, US) to shelter them, the Israeli state would have been kaput not long after their invasion of Palestine.
Israelis discriminate, oppress and deny civil liberties to the 20% of non Jewish, Arab/Israelis living within the borders of Israel. That’s not about to change anytime soon with the mass Likudnik/Zionist indoctrination and brainwashing of the Israeli public.
Christians have their problems with the NAZI thugs in Jerusalem, but nothing like the daily humiliations and oppressions Israeli/Arabs must endure. My comment was principally about Palestinian populations and their resistance movements in the W/B and Gaza. But Israeli ‘brainlessness’ on the domestic front is driving Israeli/Arabs into closer associations with their brothers and sisters in the occupied territories.
Once Palestinians and Israeli/Arabs get it into their heads the 2 state gig is finished, they will begin fighting for their civil liberties and rights within a greater Israel. When they win, and its not a question of if, that’s when greater Israel becomes greater Palestine. This war has only begun and the Zionists can’t win it.
Arnold,
Re: Aug. 7th, 8:44pm – - Very interesting. I think it is a very good thing for Arab public opinion to be supportive of Iran.
rfjk,
Since a growing percentage of the population of Israel is either non-Jewish, or ultra-orthodox, doesn’t Israel need to improve educational and economic opportunities for the non-Jewish element of the population?
rfjk,
The UK would adamantly oppose any US employment of tactical nukes in a war against Iran. The war itself would be opposed, of course.
I am intrigued by your statement that the “brainless Israelis. . .have wasted 60 years in crushing Palestinian resistance.” Are you referring to Muslims and Christians living within Israel proper (that is, within the June 1, 1967 borders)?
Fiorangela
Israelis are thugs using NAZI and Afrikaner tactics in trying to crush the indigent population of Palestine for some 60 years. And of course they believe Americans are stupid and easily manipulated into supporting their interests and enabling their atrocities and war crimes. However, in the long run its not going to save them.
Richard Steven Hack
The W/10 – 10 ton tactical nukes were designed specifically for lower grade targets like emplaced anti-ship batteries. Theater, tactical nukes were even designed to be scalable up or down for different tactical target sets. Theater, tactical nukes are not strategic armaments. Intercontinental ballistic missiles with 100 kiloton warheads are employed for ‘strategic result.’ Nor would nukes be ‘peppered’ willy-nilly all over the ‘Iranian coastline.’ Anti-ship batteries will also be heavily defended by Iranian ground forces, making ‘Marine or Seal assaults’ suicide missions. Over advertised conventional bunker busters and thermobaric bombs have not delivered on the sales hype. Anti-ship batteries once identified and targeted are going to prove far tougher to knock out by conventional armaments, just as the massive and so called “accurate’ aerial bombardments utterly failed in annihilating Al-Qaeda in Tora Bora. And there were no deeply buried, vast underground complexes protecting the opposing forces in that battle.
Regardless of the mystical enormity of the US war machine, a much over committed and burdened US armed forces in the region and elsewhere in the world leaves the US with few ground forces to exploit a conventional air offensive against Iran. Not anytime soon at the outset. Nor did I say the US wouldn’t use conventional armaments. Such will be in the mix. And however the Iranians plan their fight the US will not waste precious, limited time waging an asymmetric, 4th generation, counter/insurgency or counter/terror war its currently waging in Iraq and Afghanistan. The whole tool kit will be unleashed upon Iran and its peoples will be part of the primary target set, including infrastructure and the Iranian war machine. It won’t matter what the world thinks or how it acts, because the whole global community will be going nuts with half of it demanding the US to get it over with, while the other half is psychotically proclaiming undying hatred and revenge.
‘Fyi’ did make one telling observation. He stated that all the Iranians had to do was out last the Americans. The boys and girls in the Pentagon know it too and that fact ranks right up there among the many reasons militating against a war with Iran. Nonetheless, should the unthinkable stupidity manifest itself, ‘time’ becomes a crucial factor once those oil tankers cease sailing through the Straits of Hormuz. There isn’t 3 months or all the time in the world to force a result. That luxury will not be gifted to the Iranians, like brainless Israelis who have wasted 60 years in crushing Palestinian resistance. There’s no question the Iranian people are tough, tougher than the Israelis. Its a shame we are not allies. But in the prospect, once the fats in the fire nukes will be used along with everything else in Americas arsenal, because such a conflict will rapidly escalate into an existential struggle. Maybe even global. And for what its worth the US has not been defeated in Iraq or Afghanistan. We haven’t won in the conventional sense, but much about warfare and war-fighting is a whole different duck in the 21st century.
rfjk:
Yes, I agree with much of your possible, althought not probable, scenaria.
Fidel Castro has similar take, noting that US is in cul-de-sac and war with Iran seems to be – according to Fidel – her preferred way of dealing with the failed policies of the past.
In fact, Fidel agrees that a war with Iran, initiated by US, will leade to WWIII.
George Bush also understood this – that is why when he mentioned in Iran and WWIII in one sentence he suddenly stopped talking.
The stupdity of it is that US and EU , Russia and China, raised the stakes of keeping Iran down to the level of risking WWIII. As though there is a margin for them in that.
Fiorangela:
You are giving Americans too much credit.
What happened in Iraq was out of US control; much of their policy was reactive to the events; such as erecting concrete walls since they lacked the soldiers to enforce security.
I think the Americans deliberately followed a revolutionary course in Iraq and destroyed the state, all the time thinking of the Germany and Japanese state construction after WWII. They were very ignorant of Iraq and more ignorant of what had actulally happened 60 years earlier in those 2 states. It really was the case of hubristic ignorance.
And that is when the Iranians moved in – or Najaf & Qom, depending on your point of view.
Nasser:
A mullah has stated his opinion. That is not the position of IRG.
In regards to threats against Armenia by Iran – again please specify a reference.
In fact, the Iranian policy towards all her neighbour’s is on of zero-problem – if achieveable. If zero-problem is not possible, then a pragmatic policy of mutually beneficial cooperation is pursued.
Vias-free travel traties exist between Iran and a number of other states. Azeri Republic is one such.
Rfjk: I would also add that it’s unlikely the US would use nukes on Iranian missile batteries. The problem with those assets is FINDING them. Once found, they can be taken out by any number of conventional US weapons or even Marine or SEAL assaults. The US isn’t going to pepper the entire Iranian coastline with nukes in the hopes of knocking out Iran’s missile systems.
The only value in tactical nuclear weapons is: 1) taking out concentrated masses of opposing forces; 2) taking out hardened facilities. In the latter case, the facilities need to be of sufficient size or threat potential as to justify the use of a nuclear weapons. A missile battery doesn’t quality, even if it’s hidden in a cave – especially if you can’t find the cave.
You are correct that the Iranians will suffer badly. But it won’t be because of nukes, it will be because the US destroys a large part of the Iranian domestic infrastructure with massive bombardment just as it did in Iraq and it will do so without regard to civilian casualties. There are ways the Iranians could minimize the civilian casualties if they have an effective Civil Defense infrastructure, but I don’t know where they are in that.
But even if civilians suffer, the Iranian military can maintain its cohesion, probably better than Iraq did – especially since 1) the Iranian military is more likely to support the Iranian leadership than Iraq’s officers were willing to support Saddam, and 2) the Iranians have the experience of both a massive war in the ’80′s and also the experience of assessing the US attack on Iraq. If they have planned well, they can keep it together despite a massive US bombardment that wrecks a good deal of their equipment. Then they can turn their attention to implementing a Fourth Gen war plan that will cause massive problems for the US in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf, and elsewhere.
Nasser: “It all worked out so well for the Iraqis and the Serbs!”
In fact, the Serbian military was never degraded as much by the air bombardment as the Pentagon thought. This was proven later.
In fact, even the Iraqi military had a lot of assets hidden away that were never touched by the US bombardment.
The Iranians are very likely to do as well.
If you are referring to the overall outcomes, that is a different matter. Clearly Iraq’s PEOPLE won against the US via the insurgency (not to mention Iran being entrenched in Iraq’s government), and the Pashtuns are in the process of winning in Afghanistan. There is no comparison possible with the Serbian situation since there was never any point to that war in the first place except to allow Kosovo to become a haven of organized crime and distract people from Clinton’s personal problems.
rfjk, Israel boasts of the “favor” it did for the world in destroying Osirik and a facility in Syria (that may or may not have been nuclear). What Israel refuses — or is incapable of incorporating into its thinking process is that the attack on Osirik set in motion — set in motion, that is, was a critical first move in the ultimate destruction of Iraq, the deaths of over a million people, the destruction of an entire, ancient and beautiful culture and its infrastructure. Israel’s rogue attack on Osirik resulted in Saddam increasing its quest for nuclear weapons, which caused Iran to fear a nuclear Iraq and scale up its nuclear projects.
Israel and the US deny this sequence of events at the same time that a primary argument that is made is that Iran must be denied uranium enrichment because if Iran has nuclear capability, surrounding states will seek nuclear capability — the same concatenation as Israel set off with the bombing of Osirik.
Are Israelis deliberately obtuse or ideologically blind in failing to recognize with regard to Israel what they accuse with regard to Iran, and do they think the rest of us are so stupid that we don’t see the mendacity?
rfjk; You say the US cannot bend Iran to its will with conventional weapons. This is true. But then you say the US can do so with tactical nuclear weapons. But a tactical nuke is just a “bigger conventional bomb”. There are limits which are quickly realized when you try to use them to coerce a strategic result.
The centerpiece of Iran’s strategy is Fourth Generation, asymmetric war. There is no way to use nukes effectively against that kind of strategy.
Therefore the only way the US can compel Iran to surrender would be to use nukes on civilian population centers. This would provoke a massive outcry on the part of the whole world, and vastly increase the number of people trying terrorism and Fourth Gen War on the US around the world.
I’m not prepared to say the US absolutely would never use tactical nukes in Iran. In fact, I was told by a military person – supposedly an ex-Navy SEAL – once that the US secretly used tactical nuclear weapons in IRAQ way back in 1991. I have no way of knowing if that was true or if this person knew (the odds are against both).
But the US would be taking a massive risk using ANY nuclear weapons, other than possibly bunker busters, against a non-nuclear country, despite what the US defense posture calls for. So I doubt the US will attempt to break the Iranian military, still less its Fourth Gen capabilities, through the use of nuclear weapons of any size.
For one thing, the US doesn’t need them to break the Iranian conventional military. The US military has more than enough capability to destroy most of Iran’s conventional forces over a period of some months. The US will NOT be able to destroy ALL of Iran’s forces, note. But it will degrade them sufficiently to make them unable to confront US forces in an effective manner.
Arab armies SUCK. That’s the bottom line. Iraq had some capable soldiers in its military, but their overall system was orders of magnitude behind the US military. The same is true of Iran. Iran can inflict significant damage to US assets in the region, but only for a while (a few weeks perhaps) before the US Air Force and Navy pretty much limit Iran’s conventional retaliatory capability to a minimum that will not affect the overall course of the war.
Where Iran can excel, and actually defeat the US, is in the application of its conventional military (whatever is left of it after the initial bombing campaign) and especially its IRGC and militias in an unconventional, Fourth Gen war strategy. I have commented on this in the past. Just as the Iraqi insurgency succeeded against the US, and the Afghan insurgency is succeeding against the US, so, too, will the Iranians. This is a basic principle now that has been established: There is no way for a conventional military to win a Fourth Generation War conflict, short of committing genocide on the opposing forces AND their supporters.
Fiorangela says: Richard S. Hack:
“Maybe Obama doesn’t want war DURING HIS TERM. But he STILL is faithfully following his orders to further the COURSE for war.” so you and Brill agree!
Well, we agree on the surface. Brill may or not believe what he says about Obama. The problem is Brill puts the onus on Iran. I put the onus on the US.
“I also speculate that the case is not so much antipathy toward Iran as unwillingness to express antipathy toward Israel.”
I suspect so. I don’t know if Brill is a “closet Zionist”. It can be hard to spot them. Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo is clearly one, based on his actions and comments back when I was posting on that site. Basically, you have to look at what someone is NOT saying as well as what they ARE saying. If Iran is always in the wrong, and Israel is either always in the right – or not even mentioned – then one can pretty well assume the issue is really dislike for Iran based on its antipathy for Israel.
My own view of Iran is based on the fact that I’m an anarchist and atheist. Therefore I have no interest in Iran’s government at all. My sole interest in this is simply what is the most rational way to treat people. I don’t think its correct to bomb civilians under any circumstances. Therefore a war with Iran is not correct. It’s also not a good idea from the point of view of the US economy of which I am a (poor) part. I’m also opposed to colonialism, imperialism, racism, religious fanaticism, and state terrorism, which explains my opinion of Israel’s and Iran’s government – AND the US government. Of the three, Iran is the least dangerous to the world.
fyi
I messed up again. fyi, the previous post is meant for you.
Apparently I didn’t make myself clear the first time.
The US military knows full well a limited or strategic bombing campaign using conventional weapons and ordinance against Iran will fail, even if effected on the same massive, total war footing as was directed against Germany in WW II. It will fail because air-power alone CANNOT win wars. This isn’t rocket science or some great secret and has been proved several times over in other conflicts since 1945.
The stupidities advocated by Israelis, Zionists, neocons and their enablers don’t even rate as pinpricks since they are only advocating the bombing of known or presumed nuclear facilities. Even the principality of Liechtenstein could survive the brainless idiocies these goofs are eternally dreaming up. What it will accomplish is enraging the Iranian peoples and guaranteeing not only full mastery of the nuclear full-cycle of enriching uranium to weapons grade, but drive development and acquisition of nuclear armaments and the means to deliver them. The retards will only insure the horror they fear most, a nuclear armed Iran with the capability to turn all of Israel/Palestine into a lake of leaping lava.
For a conventional bombing campaign to work Iran will have to be invaded by land forces. I have stated why that won’t happen.
Should the maniacs on both sides of the divide seize the day and cause a war between the US and Iran, the US has only one card to play; cold war theater, tactical nukes. These are low-yield, high-blast nuclear ordinance from 10 to 600 tons, which in conventional terms range from 40 to 60,000 tons of TNT. And that’s just the small stuff.
Now some people doubt the US would use these weapons in a war with Iran. I believe the US would be hard pressed not to use them, especially along the littoral environments that face the Straits of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf where Iran has its anti-ship batteries dug in and emplaced to threaten US naval task forces and shipping. Supersonic, anti-ship missiles, which Iran may have in unknown abundance, is the big reason Sec-Def Gates wants to stop building aircraft carriers and mothballing a few of the 11 obsolete carriers and assorted support vessels. Technology creates and it destroys. Those anti-ship batteries will have to be destroyed, and only nukes can do the job.
Personally, as I have stated, I don’t believe a US/Iranian war is in the cards, but should the unthinkable happen Iranians would suffer horribly and wind up being as big a bunch of losers as Americans. There are no winners, especially if it goes global dragging in the rest of the world. The Middle East and central Eurasia is a major international concern to every state on the planet, no matter how much that irks the regions indigents.
fyi, I’m aware that Iraq’s population is not monolithic. The point I think I was trying to make is that despite its western-imposed, fractured contours and polity, Iraq had struggled to accommodate the situation. Maintaining that accommodation was accomplished through repressive leadership. In ancient Greece and Rome, repressive leaders — tyrants — ruled for relatively short times to push fractious elements into some kind of unity; as the more-or-less unified group gathered strength, it removed its tyrant by internal action. In contrast, the US, by design, destroyed the unifying tyrant and played upon the original divisions to once again fragment the society and put them at odds with each other. In the process, the US destroyed Iraqi institutions, infrastructure, monuments, culture, electrical systems, water systems, sewer systems, hospitals, the middle class, the service class — ie. medical doctors were killed or left the country, as did a huge proportion of Iraq’s professional class. US erected concrete barriers between neighborhoods so that now, Iraq resembles a shorter-scale Israel-Palestine walled off region where once was an intermarried and interacting community.
That is the division that US deliberately imposed on Iraq.
fyi,
Ran up on this from the same site:
http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2010/04/24/seyed-hasan-ameli/
“Iran never ever threatened Armenia with war.”
- Might I suggest you do more historical reading particularly on how Iran repeatedly threatened Armenia not to attack Nakhchivan. The question is why does Iran continue to remain ostensibly neutral and engage in futile efforts to win over the hostile Azeris up North (lifting visa requirements, continuing to support Nachchivan and so forth) if not for domestic concerns?
“In the hypothetical case that Russia attacks Azeri Republic, I am certain that Iranian leaders will do nothing militarily.”
- Of course Iran won’t do anything then, it is too weak; much like how Pakistan is to control US actions north of its borders. Such a thing can “stir up” Iranian Azeris though even if they are not as “tribalistic” as the Pashtuns.
Withdraw my comment.
More on Azerbaijan Republic:
http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2010/07/29/xatinoglu/
Nasser:
Americans did not cause the Pashtun problems in Pakistan.
Pakistanis did that by enlisting themselves in war that was not theirs – the proxy war of US-USSR.
Iran never ever threatened Armenia with war. I have never ever seen a reference to it even obliquely. I have never heard it from any of my Armenian sources.
At the most, it might have been a situation like 1967 when US had to ask repeatedly for Israeli assurances that they would not capture Damascus.
I never stated that Iranian leaders are indifferent to Azeri sentiments in Iran.
But they are also not beholden to that sentiment.
They have balanced their country’s interests quite well. They have friendly relations with Armenia – zero problems and correct relations with the Azeri Republic.
In the hypothetical case that Russia attacks Azeri Republic, I am certain that Iranian leaders will do nothing militarily. Azeri Republic is considered a Western-oriented state and Iran has no responsibility towards it.
“If Pashtuns were so well integrated in the Pakistani society, why are portions of them in rebellion against the state now?”
I do believe I wrote earlier that the whole thing turned on its head for Pakistan because of the Americans. The Americans seemed to have realized this and apparently are deeply concerned about destabilizing Pakistan lest it leads to Taliban (Pashtun) nukes; which gives further weight to the fact that it is both a Punjabi and a Pashtun country.
Imagine if Iran was in a situation like Pakistan, I wonder what would happen to it if it was seen supporting a Russian reoccupation of Azerbaijan for example? If Iran is so indifferent to pan Azeri sentiments amongst its own population why did it repeatedly threaten Armenia with war if it didn’t exercise restraint or attacked Nakhchivan? Why doesn’t Iran support Armenia more openly and vigorously now? It certainly makes foreign policy sense to further strengthen Armenia and keep the Turks apart.
Nasser:
The statement: “Both Pakistan and Iran face the strange mix of having the larger portion of an ethnic group residing within its borders and being very well co opted into the state and society, while the minority population of that ethnicity residing over the north of the border are hostile to the larger state down south.” is something that I could agree with in 1990s.
If Pashtuns were so well integrated in the Pakistani society, why are portions of them in rebellion against the state now?
“As far as I know, the Army of Pakistan is where the Pashtuns exist outside of NWFP in any significant number in the state.”
Obviously then you don’t know. You probably have never been there and your sense of ethnic superiority prevents you from learning about other people you deem to be inferior. Both Pakistan and Iran face the strange mix of having the larger portion of an ethnic group residing within its borders and being very well co opted into the state and society, while the minority population of that ethnicity residing over the north of the border are hostile to the larger state down south. Pakistan’s actions in Afghanistan and Iran’s actions in Azerbaijan are thus partly influenced by domestic concerns and both try to expand their influence northwards. But you don’t find the analogy to be relevant because oh the Iranians are an “ancient people” and those Pakistanis and Pashtuns are inferior to you lot. I liked how you threw India in there though.
Nasser:
As far as I know, the Army of Pakistan is where the Pashtuns exist outside of NWFP in any significant number in the state.
Tehran, on the other hand, has the largest ethnic Azeri population in the world. [Most of whom no longer even speak Azeri Turkish at home, actually. ]No analogous situation obtains for Pashtuns in Pakistan. Moreover, the tribal culture of Azeri, as a political force, disappeared in Iran by the middle of 20-th century. That is not the case for Pakistan where the tribes not only have persisted to this day but they are also in open rebellion against the state.
Iranian government is not interested in “swallowing” as you say, the Azeri Republic. The Iranian leaders have concluded that such a course of action will destabilize the ethnic balance of Iran as well as cause social friction among Azeri of Iran and those of Nachecvan and Aran.
Iranian leaders also have correctly assessed that the posture of the Azeri Republic towards the Islamic Republic, since her emergence since 1991, has been either hostile or unfriendly. The posture of Armenia towards the Islamic Republic, since 1991, has been either neutral or friendly.
Armenia has no claims against Iran, Iran has no claims against Armenia, and cooperation has been the name of the game. There are Armenians living and working in Iran – descendants of the refugees from Turkish massacre of Armenians in 1905 – and there are Iranians that take vacations in Armenia.
This situation does not obtain for Azeri Republic. The attitude of Azeri Republic to Iran is very similar to that of Pakistan to India. For as India, with more Muslims that Pakistan, demonstrates the fallacy of Raison d’Etre of Pakistan, the existence of more Azeri in Iran than in the Azeri Republic challenges the basis of the Azeri statehood. For this reason, they will always be against Iran.
The pathetic thing about Azeri Republic is this: the official news agency is called “Turan”, which is a name from the Book of Kings by Ferdowsi, referring to an ancient land ruled by Tur, son of Freidoon, and Iranian hero and king. This is like Pakistan calling its official news agency Kaurava.
You may make any analogy you like, but I do not find your Azeri one persuasive.
Nasser:
I mentioned that in case of war with US, Iran only needs to last.
In case of Iraq, they had multiple problems and Iran does not have.
But I always go back to 2006 – when Iran was threatened by US with war and the Iranian leaders did not budge.
fyi,
“Iranians need to withstand US air assaults.
If they can do so until firing stops they have won and US has lost for economic and political reasons.”
It all worked out so well for the Iraqis and the Serbs! Didn’t you also suggest that China doesn’t have a second strike capability?! I think Iran would be best served by not taking your advice and instead exercise caution when dealing with the Americans.
fyi,
“You are wrong about Azeris of Iran and I wish you would study a bit of history first before making such grotesque comparisons between Azeris and Pashtuns. For it was the Azeris ethnic group that created Iran and resurrected, on purpose, that ancient name.”
My analogy is perfectly relevant because Pashtuns are very prominent in Pakistani state and society much like how the Azeris are in Iran. The situations are obviously not perfectly identical and Pakistan is a young state that was not “resurrected” like how Iran was by the Safavids but the situations and societal positions of the two ethnic groups in those respective countries are similar. These ethnic groups are so part and parcel of the two countries and so co-opted into the state that one can say that Iran is both a Persian and an Azeri country and Pakistan is both a Punjabi and Pashtun country. If you deny the prominence of Pashtuns in Pakistan, be it in the media, sports, the military etc I am forced to conclude that you have never been to that country before and your “grotesque” prejudices and ethnic chauvinism prevents you from actually learning about that place. The prominence of these ethnic groups in the state and their possible reactions and dual loyalties because of events involving their ethnic brethren up north is precisely what gives those two countries their sense of vulnerabilities and a reason to influence events up north. Both these countries try to expand their influence northwards and ideally hoping to just swallow them up. Pakistan almost succeeded in this before the whole thing turned on its head, both times largely because of the Americans.
A possible ‘regime-change’ in Ankara before US-Israel attack on Iran.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/a-regime-change-in-turkey/
Iranian:
American planners are still denying facts that were clear to many 4 years ago.
Until they acknowledge the strategic facts (some of which I have enumerated) they will look clueless.
rfjk:
Iranians need to withstand US air assaults.
If they can do so until firing stops they have won and US has lost for economic and political reasons.
Fiorangela:
Iraq was created out of 3 former Ottoman provinces.
Its divisions predate US.
Likewise in Afghanistan, the tribal and ethno-linguistic divisions predate US invasion.
Nasser:
You are wrong about Azeris of Iran and I wish you would study a bit of history first before making such grotesque comparisons between Azeris and Pashtuns. For it was the Azeris ethnic group that created Iran and resurrected, on purpose, that ancient name.
In Pakistan, Pashtun’s had no role in the formation of the state – a state dominated by Punjabis.
Castellio:
The strategy will fail in case of Iran.
Americans in particular do not comprehend the social structure of Islamic societies or the specific sociology of Iran.
But fundamental issue for US strategist is not this or that specific instrumentality. In my opinion, the fundamental issue facing US planners is that they are in state of (strategic) denial. I tried, in this thread, indicate the facts that are being ignored by them.
They could create a lot of havoc but it will not get US to where they think she should get since the denial of facts will come back and bite them in the ass.
Kooshy brought it up on this page at 9.23…
I remember talking to many young in South Korea not too many years ago, and hearing it expressed, more than once, that one of the better reasons for reunification with the North was to give South Korea the same nuclear capability.
Not that long ago… trying to break the on-going siege, which continues:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnqItpJI4rs&feature=player_embedded
Has anyone brought up the recent poll of Arab publics?
Of Arabs who think Iran’s nuclear program is purely for peaceful purposes and those who think it is to make a weapon, in both groups a majority of Arabs believe Iran should be able to continue its program without international pressure.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM170_100804_arabpublic.html
The New York Times attended the meeting with Obama this week. Its editorial today, “President Obama and Iran”, said: “The Iranian government continues to churn out nuclear fuel and block international inspections.” At least the NYT favors a negotiated resolution of the dispute.
“I went to a restaurant called A Taste Of The Raj. The waiter beat me with sticks and made me construct a complicated railway system.” Hahahahaha
Love Omid Djalili. Check out Shappi Khorsandi another British Iranian comedian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8I5KmlXCLIk
Can’t let this one pass (from Omid Djalili, a British-Iranian comedian) ….
I went to a restaurant called A Taste Of The Raj. The waiter beat me with sticks and made me construct a complicated railway system.
PressTV reports President Karzai wants all private contractors out of Afghanistan. This would be an excellent step forward. One reason for the squandering of so hundreds of billions of dollars on idiotic military adventures in the Middle East, by the US, is simply that the snouts of so many tens of thousands of lawyers, lobbyists, other influence peddlers, generals and admirals, etc etc etc, are deep in the trough. More war, more slop poured into their troughs!
Nasser – sadly I mention him only half in jest. In case you haven’t guessed, I’m a big admirer of Younis – great character and player. The current Pakistan team need a substantial dose of his indomitable Pashtun instincts ….
Interesting post though, thanks. I suppose the other aspects are the divisions between the Pakistani Taliban and the Afghan Taliban, and India’s rather malign influence on the former. As is often said these days, the road to Kabul runs through Kashmir.
rfjk,
Agreed, war between the US and Iran would be a catastrophe for the Iranian people, and for the Middle East and possibly the entire planet.
Any use of nukes, no matter how small and efficient for the job at hand, would be a blunder by the US of the greatest magnitude.
I too fear Obama is not showing great strength of character, in resisting the war demands of the Israeli Fifth Column Taki warns us about. How many hundreds of billions more dollars will he squander on the Afghan quagmire?
James Canning
I forgot to address the previous message to you.
My point was merely to point out the ludicrousness of pmr9 notion that a war with the US is a winnable undertaking for the Iranians.
With the exception of Zionist/neocon insane asylum escapees, W/H saber rattling and perennial mantras of ‘all options are on the table,’ what’s probably next to zero is the US ‘establishment’ getting snookered into a war with Iran. I believe its widely accepted across the foreign policy making establishment that a US/Iran war would be a ‘strategic disaster’ many magnitudes worse for the US than the Iraq imbroglio. And I believe the biggest opponents are in the Pentagon in contradistinction to what Generals and Admirals have said. I believe if it were left up to the weakling Obama the Israel Lobby would have him by his ears, on his knees and declaring war in short order.
But Israelis and their US enablers do want the US to attack Iran and conspire tirelessly to accomplish it. Should a war somehow come into play with Iran, regardless of how its started, the US does not have forever to manage it. Within weeks if not days, with 40% of the world supply of oil choked off the global economy will be going down the rat hole of the Mother of All Global Depressions. Kiss the pseudo recovery goodbye and hello to a whole lot of domestic upheaval and foreign pressure for the US to finish the war.
Conventional air strikes will not make the Iranians heel. Even if executed on the massive scale of the strategic bombing Germany suffered during WW II. In any case strategic bombing won’t do it all by itself. Iran would have to be invaded. Number 1 problem is the US doesn’t have the troops. Number 2 problem is a divisive antiwar movement should national conscription be introduced to get the manpower, besides the additional problems of a limited time horizon and spiraling economic hardships.
The US would be sorely pressed to use the one hammer in its toolbox that MAY work, theater-tactical nukes. I did not say strategic nukes. We are talking about an entirely different breed of cold war weapon that range from 10 (W-54) up to 600 ton warheads (W-72). They are 50 to 100 time more powerful than their throw weights or similarly rated conventional ordinance. These babies are small: “10.75 inches diameter (270 mm), about 15.7 inches long (400 mm), and weighs around or slightly over 50 pounds (23 kg).” Your classic suit case bomb that could be shot from a “bazooka,” artillery piece or mounted on a mortar-rocket or missile. And that’s not including the nuclear bunker busters developed over the past decade.
Its far more likely the US and Iran will resolve their differences than go to war. But should the unthinkable happen the US has only ONE possible winner in its arsenal. And maybe, just maybe that won’t work either!
Alan,
LOL (I just looked him up). Pashtuns in Pakistan much like the Azeris in Iran are co-opted into and very much part and parcel of both the society and the state. But pan Pashtun nationalism is a threat to the Pakistani state much like how pan Azeri nationalism is a threat to the Iranian state. Pashtuns north of the Durand Line appeals to pan Pashtun nationalism and threatens the territorial integrity of Pakistan much like how the Azeris north of Iran (sometimes) calls for a greater Azerbaijan and threaten the territorial integrity of Iran. The threat is magnified and exaggerated precisely because these ethnic groups are so prominent in their respective countries. So Pakistan and Iran have an interest in assuring that these ethnic groups up north are too busy elsewhere to divert their attention down south while also making sure that their own Azeri or Pashtun communities (who are otherwise so well integrated) are not too stirred up by the events up north. So Iran takes an intimate interest in the events in the South Caucasus as Pakistan takes an intimate interest in the events of Afghanistan. Azerbaijan is engaged in a prolonged conflict with Armenia and Iran has prevented a resolution by discouraging the possibility of drawing up a corridor linking mainland Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan and Armenia with Karabakh all the while discouraging any renewed outbreak of violence that can really stir up the Iranian Azeris. Pakistan’s solution was to encourage the Afghani Pashtuns to expand into non Pashtun parts of Afghanistan and kill some Shias, Hindus and Iranian diplomats thus locking them into conflict with some other people. Iran and Pakistan really has their work cut out for them because they face the added burden of having the Americans and the Russians often throwing a monkey wrench into their whole process which can really destabilize their countries.
The US president looks more and more like a person who doesn’t know what he’s doing. If a number of senior reporters sitting together with Obama can’t agree on what he said, then how can the Iranians figure out what he wants to do? Especially, now that he has lied and that his signature has no credibility (the letter to Lula).
Dan Cooper: Richard Dreyfuss delivered an impressive address to the Commonwealth Club of California last week. listen here.
Like you, Dreyfuss wondered why nobody is being tried for crimes in US activities abroad, and what has happened to a sense of outrage.
Dr. Duffy, president of Commonwealth Club, is amusing: depending on the guest, Iran is either a rogue or ignored, but never respected. Perhaps Commonwealth Club of California serves grape Koolaid at its meetings.
On what basis do you say this, James: “The US has been trying to facilitate a lessening of the ethnic divides that obtain in Afghanistan. ”
Did you watch the Jane Harman video that Castellio posted at 11:24 am? Harman says that US is, quite cleverly, sowing division amongst Iran’s diverse ethnic groups, and it’s obvious the US worked to fracture relationships between Sunnis and Shiias in Iraq. Divide and conquer seems to be a favored US modus operandi; what makes you think US would change in Afghanistan?
Since 1945, the United States is believed to have been on the brink of using nuclear weapons at least three times.
In waging their bogus “war on terror”, the present governments in Washington and London have declared they are prepared to make “pre-emptive” nuclear strikes against non-nuclear states.
With each stroke toward the midnight of a nuclear Armageddon, the lies of justification grow more outrageous.
Iran is the current “threat”. But Iran has no nuclear weapons and the disinformation that it is planning a nuclear arsenal comes largely from a discredited CIA-sponsored Iranian opposition group, the MEK – just as the lies about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction originated with the Iraqi National Congress, set up by Washington.
The role of western journalism in erecting this straw man is critical.
That America’s Defence Intelligence Estimate says “with high confidence” that Iran gave up its nuclear weapons programme in 2003 has been consigned to the memory hole. That Iran’s president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” is of no interest. But such has been the mantra of this media “fact” that in his recent, obsequious performance before the Israeli parliament, Gordon Brown alluded to it as he threatened Iran, yet again.
This progression of lies has brought us to one of the most dangerous nuclear crises since 1945, because the real threat remains almost unmentionable in western establishment circles and therefore in the media.
There is only one rampant nuclear power in the Middle East and that is Israel.
The heroic Mordechai Vanunu tried to warn the world in 1986 when he smuggled out evidence that Israel was building as many as 200 nuclear warheads.
In defiance of UN resolutions, Israel is today clearly itching to attack Iran, fearful that a new American administration might, just might, conduct genuine negotiations with a nation the west has defiled since Britain and America overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.
In the New York Times on July 18, the Israeli historian Benny Morris, once considered a liberal and now a consultant to his country’s political and military establishment, threatened “an Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland”. This would be mass murder. For a Jew, the irony cries out.
The question begs: are the rest of us to be mere bystanders, claiming, as good Germans did, that “we did not know”? Do we hide ever more behind what Richard Falk has called “a self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted violence”? Catching war criminals is fashionable again.
Radovan Karadzic stands in the dock, but Sharon and Olmert, Bush and Blair do not. Why not? The memory of Hiroshima requires an answer.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20444.htm
Oh dear, Middle East, not Middle Eat. How did that slip by?
I was wondering if someone was going to say that, James, that the Americans were working to reconcile tribes in Afghanistan (and some would add, as they were trying to do in Iraq), but I don’t buy it.
In any case, can you point to some back-up on your statement?
I am of the sentiment that the failed state is the end desire of US policy in the Middle East (a failed state with a pliant leader, I should add), and ethnic division is an important element of the failed state.
I don’t think it just odd that the 8.5 billion of reconstruction money disappeared in Iraq, or that the American Congress decided that reconstruction money should stop in Afghanistan. Reconstruction was never serious to start with.
I think the intent links to the result, which is to degrade the country militarily and economically. I can hear you saying “But what is in it for the US not to have a thriving Middle Eat?”, but I think that’s a question we can all answer.
It is silly to assume that the ‘motives are good’ and the results just happen to be bad.
rfjk,
I agree a US-Iran war would be a catastrophe for the people of Iran, but the chances of US employment of nukes is zero or virtually zero. A war would be an act of grotesque irresponsibility, dwarfing the insanity of the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
rfjk,
If Iran wants general acceptance of its enrichment of LEU, this object seems to be clearly in sight.
Castellio,
The US has been trying to facilitate a lessening of the ethnic divides that obtain in Afghanistan. The foolish support for Sunni terrorists in SE Iran, provided apparently by Israel and the US, essentially is as vicious as it is illogical, given that in Iraq the US has been trying to lessen the political divide between the Shia and the Sunnis.
James Canning
What they have been demanding all along. Their sovereign, unalienable and just rights to nuclear technology under the UN’s IAEA.
Nasser,
Re: Aug. 7th, 2:05am – - Thanks. I would expect Fred Kagan to oppose road and rail, and pipeline, connections between Iran, Afghanistan, and the other countries in the region. But Kagan is a neocon warmonger and something of an idiot, in my view.
I think a stable and prosperious Iran is very much in the best interests of Pakistan.
pmr9
The Iranian people would suffer horribly in a war with the US. Infinitely far worse than what they suffered in the Iran/Iraq war. The US will want to end the conflict quickly and at the very minimum go for broke using theater nukes. For all their conventional and asymmetric capabilities the Iranians have no effective response or defense against these kinds of weapons. Global economic pain and all the havoc they can create in the region won’t help them either.
Mr Hack,
Re: Aug. 6th, 11:31 – - Obama seems to lack the confidence to challenge the generals and the armaments manufacturers (including the private contractors engaged in a feeding frenzy due to endless war in the greater Middle East).
The Israel lobby helps to protect the war profiteers, and the war profiteers help to promote the idiotic Israeli militarist point of view (and protect the Israeli Fifth Column Taki warns about).
rfjk,
What is Iran’s “end game” in your view?
Jim Baker gave excellent advice to G W Bush in 2006: make deals with Syria and Iran, and pull all US troops out of Iraq. This advice, if accepted, would have saved the US taxpayer $1 trillion.
Eric:
Why are you not recommending that Iran simply withdraw from the NPT right now?
If I’m right that Iran’s preferred outcome is that it attains a Japan option, it has no need to leave the NPT, nor would it benefit from that.
Iran has complained loudly and often, after all, even about its existing disclosure obligations,
I can’t think of an example. Iran’s existing obligations – the ones it ratified and was implementing before its voluntary extensions in 2003 have never been in dispute.
and correctly points out that the nuclear-weapons states aren’t providing the assistance they promised to Iran under the NPT. If Iran is not getting what it was promised out of the NPT, why should it continue to perform its NPT obligations when it’s indisputably free to withdraw at any time?
A couple of things.
1) Your claim is that “John Bolton” will bomb Iran before it attains Japan’s status. Japan implements the AP. Your claim is that the AP, applied as it is applied to Japan, would not prevent John Bolton from bombing Iran.
2) To directly answer the underlying question, if Iran was to leave the NPT in the short-term future, which I do not suggest and do not expect, but left its uranium under inspection, I do not think Iran would be attacked. Iran would face more stringent sanctions. Iran would in that case though, be seen to have initiated a provocation that the US and other countries would be responding to. Fear of an attack is not what prevents Iran from leaving the NPT as far as I understand.
The Japan option, that you are trying to prevent Iran from attaining is not about disclosure. The core dispute you have with Iran is not about disclosure.
Obama is a weakling on the foreign policy front as James Baker the III more of less suggested several months ago. These sanctions regimes no doubt hurt everyday Iranians, but are worthless against the regime simply because they are full of wholes and not universally enforced like they were against apartheid S. Africa.
Obama’s a worm on a hook and the Iranians got him right where they want him, proposing vapid and hollow gestures wasting more of his time than theirs. We are long past who does the ‘blinking,’ since the end game to all intents and purposes will be resolved on Iranian terms. Not America’s or Israel’s.
I also agree the US government continues to follow Ms. Harman’s talking points (btw, it was her husband who just purchased Newsweek Magazine).
I think widening such ethnic divisions is the key American military’ strategy, central to operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and (the covert) operations in Iran, and is a continuation of efforts in Eastern Europe.
It is a direct challenge to the inclusive qualities of Islam, and is meant as such, and can always be presented as ‘liberating the persecuted’.
But I wonder if a strategy successful in Eastern Europe will work in the Middle East.
I don’t agree. I am Azari and I don’t know anyone who wishes to see the Iranian central government weakened in any way whatsoever. Among the most staunch supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini were the Azaris and Ayatollah Khamenei is himself an Azari.
Castellio:
I think that there is a grain of truth in the Azeri-Persian divide. This divide, had historically plagued modern Iran since 1500 causing 2 civil wars. However, the wedge is not sufficient to allow US policy to succeed since the bond between the 2 populations is based on religion followed by blood. Iran is the fortress of the Shia Muslims, by the Shia Muslims, for the Shia Muslims. It is not a state dominated by Persians; many many people in the IRG are Azeris.
This policy of creating ethnic divisions, can only work at the margins of Iranian state among some disaffected Sunnis – Arbas, Kurds and Baluchis. Note that there are a minority of Arabs, Baluch and Kurds that are Shia Muslims. I think the state security apparatus will crush these groups ruthlessly and with no pity. USG activities here are at the level of annoyance.
It seems to me that USG is following Ms. Harman’s talking points.
I think that is foolish since Ms. Harman’s policy perscriptions still does not acknowledge the facts that I enumerated below:
1- Iran has come out with more enhanced power in the Middle East as a result of the US-Iraq War
2- US cannot prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons if her leaders think it is in the national interest of Iran (unless US occupies Iran)
3- US has little control over the course of events in the Levant, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.
These facts are not accepted yet by US and her planning agencies.
It reminds of General Motors leaders.
FYI: Part of the American strategy is to weaken Iran by widening ethnic divisions within Iranian society. In your opinion, how likely or effective will this be?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1oon3KNXag
nasser:
Iranian population is a genetically and racially quite mixed. In Southern Iran, you will find negroid people that are indistinguishable from Africans. Yet, there is no discrimination on basis of the color of skin by Iranians.
In fact, you only need to go to Dubai to experience, first-hand, the overt racism of the Arabs there against any and all.
When Afghanistan had a functioning state and government, she had an uneasy relationship with Pakistan since Afghanistan never recognized the Durand Line. Now that Afghanistan is a degraded and war-damaged society, I cannot see how it could offer any strategic depth to Pakistan. There is no depth there to be had. Support for Pashtuns, since 1980s, only has destablized Pakistan itself.
Pashtuns are unlike Azeris of Iran. Azeris of Iran are in the socisty and in the state. They have been there since the inception of modern Iran 500 years ago. Iran, in fact, is their creature.
I think you need to study more and write less about things of which you know very little.
Nasser
I would guess that Iran would deploy several kinds of attack simultaneously against the US Navy in the Gulf: sea-skimming missiles, ballistic missiles, torpedoes and mines. The optimal strategy, if Iran has been able to add terminal guidance to its ballistic missiles, would be to start by dropping ballistic missiles on the decks of the carriers, so as to disable them at least temporarily as launch platforms. Carriers have no defence against ballistic missiles. As the Rand report points out, US airbases in the Gulf are also highly vulnerable to ballistic missiles with submunitions that disable parked aircraft. Without air cover for its fleet, the US would quickly seek a ceasefire.
Nasser – so that’s why Pakistan isn’t picking Younis Khan?
It’s a disgrace I say.
Richard S. Hack:
“Maybe Obama doesn’t want war DURING HIS TERM. But he STILL is faithfully following his orders to further the COURSE for war.”
so you and Brill agree!
Eric A Brill at 2:14: “In case you’ve missed MHF’s post below, pay special attention to his point #4. I wonder whether other people might agree with MHF about this.”
MHF: “4. Under current U.S. military and economic circumstances, I am afraid that U.S. has no choice but to keep using band aid (clever band aids supporting the general over all policy) until hopefully another Ronald Reagan comes along in the ranks. Mr. Obama, although tremendously bright with good intentions, is not the right person to revive U.S. with a great vision similar to Reagan. Therefore, we are stuck with what we have until after 2012, or at the latest, 2016, for this problem to be resolved.”
My speculation is Brill didn’t do a lot of courtroom lawyering (standup law, I call it); my guess is more negotiating/mediating — George Mitchell kind of law: sitting in a conference room for hours and hours, bringing fractious parties together step by step by step.
I also speculate that the case is not so much antipathy toward Iran as unwillingness to express antipathy toward Israel. It’s a major factor among a very large proportion of the American public, not by any means exclusively so-called Christian zionists. It is unthinkable among well-mannered people to say or even think negatively about Jewish people, and Israel’s leaders and advocates have been persistent in keeping those two terms, Israel and Jewish, inextricably entwined.
Increasingly, American Jews are questioning that relationship. In the early days of zionism, Gertrude Stein disassociated herself from zionism while maintaining her claim to Jewish identity (Stein lived in Paris in the era when Herzl worked to gain endorsement of his idea for a sovereign homeland for Jews); today, similar public statements are being made by Jews, drawing a distinction between Jewish identity and zionism.
I prefer to make a more precise distinction, between what I call “Jeremiah Judaism” — the Jewish identity associated with Jeremiah, Judaism’s representative in the Axial Age pantheon of great ethicists, and Jabotinsky Jewishness, the militarized political movement outlined by Jabotinsky, the Osama bin Laden of Israel’s terror organization, Irgun. Benjamin Netanyahu’s father was Jabotinsky’s closest associate, and Bibi is very close to his father (more armchair psychology elucidates that relationship, but enough for now).
Oh — one more thought: that Obama distanced himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright in order to gain approval from AIPAC speaks volumes. Chris Hedges, perhaps the Christian voice of this era, is not unmindful of the incident; he said this the other day, on a ship in New York harbor that plans to sail to Gaza:
“I would like to remind them that it is they who hide in the darkness, we are in the light.” And now their moment is coming to an end. “The arc of the moral universe is long… You may have commandos who descend on ropes… we have only our hands, our hearts, our voices… But note this, note this well: it is you who are afraid of us, not us who are afraid of you… When there is freedom in Gaza, we will forgive you…”
He spoke of war crimes and Palestinian ghettoes, he said that targeted assassinations are “extrajudicial murders,” and “the peace process means the cynical one-way route to crushing the Palestinian people.” . . .
“To be a Christian,” he said, means to “speak in the voice of Jeremiah Wright, Edward Said, and Rachel Corrie.” Then he invoked many Jewish prophets, from Hannah Arendt to Noam Chomsky to Norman Finkelstein, and ended with the pronouncement that we must know the Israeli militants for what they are, terrorists. http mondoweiss dot net/2010/08/young-palestinian-americans-take-leadership-role-in-us-campaign-for-gaza html
James Canning,
You asked “Why would Pakistan want to pressure Iran?” To which fyi responded with typical Iranian racist rantings about Iranian ethnic superiority (them being “ancient people” and what not), everyone’s jealousy of the Iranians and so on and so forth.
I happen to think Pakistan is motivated by geopolitical factors in its actions towards Afghanistan. Pakistan perhaps wants to prepare for a scenario when Iran draws much closer to India (unlikely I know). Also, the Pashtuns are to the Pakistanis what the Azeris are to the Iranians. Pakistan has an intimate interest in curbing Pashtun nationalism and as long as the Pashtuns are expanding on other parts of Afghanistan and out there butchering Shias, Tajiks and Iranian diplomats, they wouldn’t direct their attention towards Punjab.
Pakistan probably also wants to become a corridor for the riches of Central Asia, particularly Turkmenistan and deny Iran such exclusive privilege. Zbigniew Brzezinski lays it out very well: “For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan – and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan – and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea.” I was listening to the neocon Fred Kagan the other day go on and on about how it is totally not in American interest that Central Asian resources flow through Iran and not through Pakistan.
Like you, I too think Iran has an interest in stability in Afghanistan and to prevent the constant inflow of drugs and refugees. Iran would also benefit if it could remain the sole Southern corridor for Central Asian resources; for which it needs Afghanistan not to turn into an extension of Pakistan. Furthermore, China wants to reduce its dependence on maritime energy shipments and Iran would benefit if it could construct pipelines to China via Afghanistan and Tajikistan; for which Iran would need some level of stability in those countries.
FYI writes: “Effective negotiations will be possible but only after U.S. recognizes that Iran has come out of the US-Iraq war with a much enhanced position in the Middle East.”
The fear, of course, is that the ‘enhanced position’ is why the war might be waged. If one defeated Iraq to lose it, maybe one should fight Iran to win both?
But one could lose all three wars, couldn’t one, no matter how many one kills?
pmr9,
I remember you pointing me to a link that was quite helpful. I hope to return the favor by pointing you to this Stratfor series that I found to be quite insightful. The articles contend that Iran’s naval capabilities are actually very limited. Its most significant assets being the Kilo class submarines and small boats carrying missiles would be taken out very quickly by the US Navy if there is an outbreak of hostilities. The articles contend that Iran’s actual ace in the hole are not anti ship missiles but naval mines.
http://thesurvivalpodcast.com/forum/index.php?topic=9614.0
Kooshy: Thanks for the link to the Walt piece. I like the “broken record” remark, and the scientist analogy.
It’s sort of like the standard Slashdot joke:
1) Threaten Iran!
2) ??????
3) PROFIT!!!
Except in this case, the people “profiting” are Israel and the military-industrial complex.
Walt still seems to believe Obama himself doesn’t want war. This might actually be true in some narrow sense. Maybe Obama doesn’t want war DURING HIS TERM. But he STILL is faithfully following his orders to further the COURSE for war. He can’t do otherwise if he wants to be re-elected. Either way, as I’ve said repeatedly, Obama is either too stupid or too weak to be President, or he’s a liar. So I see no reason to cut him ANY slack.
Fiorangela: “Sometimes it seems Brill is being obtuse, but this insight suggests he is incapable of thinking other than according to strict logical processes.”
*I’M* incapable of thinking other than according to strict logical processes.
The issue goes more to motivations. Brill has indeed been arguing “like a lawyer” – which isn’t usually all that logical. Lawyers are experts are arguing ILLOGICALLY in an attempt to spin the law to their client’s favor. This is why the profession with the most members in jail is…law.
Brill hid his antipathy to Iran until Arnold and I dragged it out of him (and believe me, that was like pulling Dracula’s teeth.) We refuted his “logic” over and over again, yet in every recent post he has blithely ignored all that and re-iterated the same false premises in varying different guises. This is fundamentally intellectually dishonest.
Nice try to smooth things over, but it won’t work. I’ve had too much experience with these sorts of people on various blogs and forums, especially on Talking Points Memo and Matt Yglesias’ blogs on these very topics, not to spot a scam artist.
Fiorangela,
I appreciate your taking the time to analyze the recent interactions on this site. I’ll devote the time warranted to replying more fully later. Just in case you or others are wondering whether “the time warranted” might be some clever way of saying “I’ll devote about 10 seconds to it,” I can assure you it means the opposite. Whether I agree with you or not on things (and lately, as you’ve noticed, “not” is more frequently the case, to my regret), I always pay attention to what you write, and my reaction to it is always on the narrow band of the spectrum from “appreciative” to “impressed” to “jealous that you can think and write so well.”
James Canning:
Not the Israeli Lobby rather 50 years of blatant and self-serving democratic egalitarianism.
Richard, Arnold, Eric and others an Interesting realist proposal
The Obama administration is still sleepwalking on Iran
Posted By Stephen M. Walt Friday, August 6, 2010 – 11:52 AM
I don’t for a minute think that President Obama cares about what I write, or that he’s even aware that I’ve criticized the lack of progress being made on the main items on his foreign policy “to-do” list. It is therefore just a coincidence that he held a surprise meeting with a group of journalists on Wednesday and offered a lengthy defense of the administration’s approach to Iran.
You can find links to eye-witness accounts of the meeting here, but the gist of the president’s pitch was as follows: 1) Our efforts to isolate Iran are working, and the regime is under growing pressure; 2) We remain open to improved relations with Iran and would welcome the opportunity to cooperate on matters of mutual interest, such as Afghanistan; 3) All Iran has to do is accept our entirely reasonable demand that it cease all nuclear enrichment; 4) Iran isn’t making rapid progress toward a nuclear bomb, so there’s no need for precipitate (i.e., military) action, but 5) All options are still “on the table.”
I don’t mean to sound like a broken record here, but the administration’s policy reminds of this famous Syd Harris cartoon depicting two scientists staring at a blackboard covered with equations, except for a spot in the middle where it says “then a miracle occurs.” One scientist says to the other: “I think you should be more explicit here in Step 2.”
Exactly. I’d like someone in the administration to be explicit about why they think our current approach is going to deliver any of the tangible things we claim to be want, such as 1) A guarantee that Iran won’t get nuclear weapons, 2) An improved relationship with Tehran, or 3) An end to Iranian support for Hezbollah, etc. It’s always possible that our current policy will eventually cause Iran to simply cave in to our demands, but the extensive literature on the efficacy of economic sanctions doesn’t offer much hope that this will happen soon. It is also possible that the clerical regime might conveniently collapse and be replaced by some version of the opposition, but there’s no reason to think this event is imminent. Indeed, tighter sanctions may even be strengthening the Revolutionary Guards and other pillars of the current regime, for the simple reason that they control key sectors of the illicit economy. And even if we did eventually get some sort of regime change, there is considerable popular support for Iran’s civilian nuclear program and key leaders of the opposition — including former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi — are strong proponents of the program. So why do we think our current policy will bring us what we want?
The basic problem is that our approach to Iran is rife with contradictions. We say we want better relations, but in the meantime we are almost certainly engaged in covert action inside Iran and we rarely miss an opportunity to remind the world that all options are still “on the table.” We’ve made it clear that we think Iran’s current government is illegitimate and ought to be replaced, and then we wonder why they don’t immediately respond when Obama says he really does want to cooperate. As I’ve noted before, this sort of inconsistency just fuels the suspicion that the United States is insincere and duplicitous and reinforces Iran’s own paranoia. We’ve also made it clear that we are dead-set against Iran’s getting a nuclear weapons capability — which they may or may not be trying to do — yet we continue to act in ways that can only reinforce their interest in having a more effective deterrent, even if it is only a “latent” capability.
True, we’ve been able to round up more international support for slightly tougher sanctions, but we’re well shy of the sort of “crippling” sanctions that might induce a change in behavior and the main reason we’ve gotten more international support is because our European allies prefer that course of action to the use of force. And states like China are probably delighted to see us remain at loggerheads with Iran forever, while they make profitable investments and oil deals without facing competition from U.S. firms.
All of which leads me to stick to my original forecast: The United States isn’t going to make any meaningful progress on relations with Iran during Obama’s first term. I don’t think Obama will authorize an attack, because that wouldn’t solve the problem for long and could make many other issues (Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf in general) much worse. (And contrary to what you may have heard, this recent survey suggests that attacking Iran over its nuclear program wouldn’t do much for our image elsewhere in the region). I don’t think the clerical regime will collapse — though I would shed no tears if it did — and I doubt very much that it will agree to halt all enrichment. In short, relations with Iran will be pretty much where they were in 2008.
Two other quick points. It’s possible that Obama’s meeting with the journalists was intended to damp down the recent groundswell of voices calling for imminent military action. After all, part of his message was that Iran’s nuclear program isn’t moving that rapidly, so we have lots of time for diplomacy to take effect. I hope that reflects his own views, but there is no reason to believe that the sort of the diplomacy that the administration is currently practicing is going to produce a breakthrough and he’s going to face continued right-wing pressure for a more forceful response.
Another possibility is that this is all just a bit of political theatre. In this version of events, the architects of our Iran policy don’t believe that diplomacy will actually succeed, but they know that you have to go through the motions and appear to exhaust every avenue before you can convince the American people and the international community that you have no choice but to oh-so-reluctantly start bombing. Some of Obama’s key advisors made arguments along these lines prior to joining the government, but there’s no way of knowing how influential this view is either within the White House or throughout the administration.
But I can’t help but wonder: What if the United States acknowledged that it can’t stop Iran from having control of the full nuclear fuel cycle (at least, not at an acceptable price), and that in all likelihood Iran will end up with a latent “breakout” capability akin to Japan’s? What if we actively tried to construct a deal that kept them from crossing the nuclear threshold and actually testing and deploying a weapon? Have we ever put a proposal like that on the table — one that acknowledged their right to an enrichment program provided they ratified and implemented the NPT Additional Protocol and maybe undertook some other measures designed to reassure us about the peaceful nature of their nuclear program?
An initiative like this would require real patience and might not work, but it would be real diplomacy as opposed to our present policy. Right now, Washington simply assumes that Iran won’t negotiate unless it is coerced into doing so by outside pressure. At the same time, Tehran has made it clear that it wants to negotiate but refuses to do so under pressure. The predictable result is the current stalemate. You’d think the U.S. government could come up with something creative to try to overcome this impasse, instead of just hoping for a miracle.
Richard S Hack, I was thinking about your conflict with Mr. Brill while driving home from work today (it’s getting bad when blog names become part of one’s inner life).
If you’ll both forgive the armchair psychologizing: I understand Brill as a person trained in the intellectual discipline of the law and logic: that is how truth is derived, and in one trained in that classical manner, to reject the conclusion that logic dictates is the definition of irrationality and insanity. You would not want to hire Brill to sell mouthwash; selling does not rely on logic, it relies on psychological manipulation.
Propaganda is the practice of psychological manipulation. The hasbara handbook instructs the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) to use emotional appeals and to deliberately use fallacious arguments in order to collect adherents to their point of view; that is, to form an unthinking mob, the antithesis of the logic and rationality on which Mr. Brill relies.
Sometimes it seems Brill is being obtuse, but this insight suggests he is incapable of thinking other than according to strict logical processes.
Israeli and neocon thinking does not follow the same thinking processes as classical liberalism. When Ron Suskind quoted a member of the Bush administration: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating new realities … we’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” Dime to donuts Suskind was quoting a neocon: neocons invent reality, they do not observe nature and analyse it logically, in Bacon’s formulation.
For a neocon, “What men define as real is real in its consequences.” The US killed perhaps a million Iraqis as a consequence of US definition of WMD in Iraq as “real.” Brill can “define as real” only that which is logical. It may be logical that increased ‘disclosure’ on the part of Iran would confound the US hypothesis that Iran seeks nuclear weapons, but that logic is not in the same realm as the reality that warhawks create. Brill’s consequences are rational in the abstract, but the warhawks consequences are real.
pmr9, I recall reading about a month ago that Iran had acquired some of England’s most sophisticated racing craft.
Joe Sestak commanded a US Navy carrier in Persian Gulf. He said the US Navy got along well with Iranian Navy — everyone conducted himself professionally, etc. However, Sestak, the Iranian speedboats that harrassed US ships were bothersome. Sestak said he used to instruct his “boys” — and the sailors aboard such ships are just late teens to early 20s — to spray just above the speedboats with cannonfire from deck mounted guns.
Boys will be boys ‘n all.
Any military historian will tell you that no regular army has ever defeated an organized guerilla resistance in a conventional warfare. The “military attack on the table”, rhetoric aside, the Western leaders know that their demoralized soldiers are no match when it comes to fighting the faith-inspired Muslim resistance groups. The US, Israel, Russia, India, NATO and many other imperialist powers are learning that truth currently in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya, Philippines, Kashmir and Lebanon.
The US tasted its first military humiliation in Islamic Iran in 1980 when its ‘Operation Eagle Claw’ failed to open its claw – resulting in the death of eight US soldiers in a ‘friendly fire’. The rest of ‘the braves’ got so panickythat they left the bodies of their fellow dead soldiers in the desert to be picked-up Iranian security men. The 8-bodybags were later sent to the US by the Iranian government.
Since the failure of Israel’s 38,000-strong force to defeate and disarm the 1500-2000 Hizbullah guerilla fighters in Summer 2006 – Israel planners prefer to let America fight its proxy conventional war against the Islamic Republic to save the lives of thousands of Jewish soldier which could die in a conventional war against Iran.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/us-cannot-defeat-iran-without-nuclear-attack/
Nothing Short of Nukes Will Work
By Gwynne Dyer
August 06, 2010 “New Zealand Herald” — When Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the highest-ranking American officer, was asked recently on NBC’s Meet The Press show whether the United States has a military plan for an attack on Iran, he replied simply: “We do”.
General staffs are supposed to plan for even the most unlikely future contingencies. Right down to the 1930s, the US maintained and annually updated plans for the invasion of Canada – and the Canadian military made plans to pre-empt the invasion.
But what the planning process will have shown, in this case, is that there is no way for the US to win a non-nuclear war with Iran.
The US could “win” by dropping hundreds of nuclear weapons on Iran’s military bases, nuclear facilities and industrial centres (cities) and killing five to 10 million people. But short of that, nothing works.
On this we have the word of Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism adviser in the White House under three administrations.
In the early 1990s, Clarke said in an interview with the New York Times four years ago, the Clinton Administration had considered a bombing campaign against Iran, but the military professionals told them not to do it.
“After a long debate, the highest levels of the military could not forecast a way in which things would end favourably for the US,” he said. The Pentagon’s planners have war-gamed an attack on Iran and they just can’t make it come out as a US victory.
It’s not the fear of Iranian nuclear weapons that makes the US Joint Chiefs of Staff so reluctant to get involved in a war with Iran. Those weapons don’t exist and the whole justification for the war would be to make sure that they never do.
The problem is that there’s nothing the US can do to Iran, short of nuking the place, that would really force Tehran to kneel and beg for mercy.
It can bomb Iran’s nuclear sites and military installations to its heart’s content, but everything it destroys can be rebuilt in a few years.
And there is no way that the US could actually invade Iran.
There are some 80 million people in Iran and, although many of them don’t like the present regime, they are almost all fervent patriots who would resist a foreign invasion.
Iran is a mountainous country and big: four times the size of Iraq.
The Iranian army currently numbers about 450,000 men, slightly smaller than the US Army – but unlike the US Army, it does not have its troops scattered across literally dozens of countries.
If the White House were to propose anything larger than minor military incursions along Iran’s south coast, senior American generals would resign in protest.
Without the option of a land war, the only lever the US would have on Iranian policy is the threat of yet more bombs – but if they aren’t nuclear, then they aren’t very persuasive. Whereas Iran would have lots of options for bringing pressure on the US.
Just stopping Iran’s oil exports would drive the oil price sky-high in a tight market. Iran accounts for about 7 per cent of internationally traded oil.
But it could also block another 40 per cent of global oil exports just by sinking tankers coming from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Arab Gulf states with its lethal Noor anti-ship missiles.
The Noor anti-ship missile is a locally built version of the Chinese YJ-82. It has a 200km range, enough to cover all the major choke points in the Gulf. It flies at twice the speed of sound just metres above the sea’s surface and has a tiny radar profile. Its single-shot kill probability has been put as high as 98 per cent.
Iran’s mountainous coastline extends along the whole northern side of the Gulf and these missiles have easily concealed mobile launchers. They would sink tankers with ease and, in a few days, insurance rates for tankers planning to enter the Gulf would become prohibitive, effectively shutting down the region’s oil exports completely.
Meanwhile, Iran would start supplying modern surface-to-air missiles to the Taleban in Afghanistan and that would soon shut down the US military effort there. (It was the arrival of US-supplied Stinger missiles in Afghanistan in the late 1980s that drove Russian helicopters from the sky and ultimately doomed the whole Soviet intervention there.)
Iranian ballistic missiles would strike US bases on the southern (Arab) side of the Gulf and Iran’s Hizbollah allies in Beirut would start dropping missiles on Israel.
The US would have no options for escalation other than the nuclear one, and pressure on it to stop the war would mount by the day as the world’s industries and transport ground to a halt.
The end would be an embarrassing retreat by the US and the definitive establishment of Iran as the dominant power of the Gulf region. That was the outcome of every war-game the Pentagon played and Mike Mullen knows it.
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.
Nuclear Detonation Map and Timeline 1945-1998
http://tv.globalresearch.ca/content/nuclear-detonation-map-and-timeline-1945-1998
fyi,
US politicians are indeed largely a “sorry lot”, as you say. And the reason? Israel lobby! And the armaments manufacturers, their lawyers, lobbyists, prostitute generals and admirals, et al.
Pirouz_2,
Admiral Fallon believed any Israeli or US attack on Iran would be a catastrophe for the region and for the entire world, not least because closing the Gulf would cause global economic chaos. I think he also would do nothing to prevent Iran from going ahead with developing nukes, even if Iran was not doing so before any idiotic attack.
The British government is strongly opposed to an idiotic attack on Iran. This is a problem for the neocon warmongers.
“A robust geopolitical thrust by the United States aimed at creating a role for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in resolving conflicts in Kyrgyzstan and Afghanistan promises to rewrite the great game rivalries in Central Asia in anticipation of an Afghan settlement.
The US initiative poses political challenges to Russia, which is a member of the 56-member OSCE, and China, which is not. The security vehicles piloted by each the respective two regional powers – the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – are being outmaneuvered by the US.”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/LH07Ag01.html
I keep wondering what’s happening to the SCO….
In 2009 70,000 Iranian Students volunteered to carry out suicide bombings in Israel. The government never responded, which suggests that the campaign was mostly propaganda.
The hard-liners started signing up volunteers after Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a a religious decree on Dec 28 saying that anyone killed while defending Palestinians in Gaza against Israeli attack would be considered a martyr.
Religious decrees are non binding on the Iranian government, but if their country was attacked how many of them would be turned down.
pmr9 A very perceptive response. You should look up the Military Times article that says the Aegis system is on the decline. Type in the below in a search engine.
study says Aegis radar systems on the decline.
According to reports the system also does not perform well in littoral waters.
One of the worst of the neocon warmongers, Robert Kagan, has an opinion piece in the Washington Post today, claiming that Iran is engaged in a “quest for a nuclear bomb.”
Paul
“So basically this says, yes, they are thinking about swarming tactics and suicide missions’
So what? if you must defend your home, child wife and mother,
wars are fogy what’s the difference how one fight to defend his home if Eric’s Indiana Jones pistol fight in Cairo is ok so is back stabbing in Kabul,
If one can’t stand the heat then one must avoid participating in Elmer’s show in the cooking channel.
One calculation in this that is sure is that they will stand to fight and that’s what the real deterrence is and was.
YES Paul – have you ever heard of the “Samson Option”?
Remember Esther was the Jewish Queen of Persia over 2000 years ago.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/samson-option-and-islamic-republic/
The most powerful interest group that is likely to veto a US attack on Iran is the US Navy. Several navies have learned to their cost that surface ships are unable to defend themselves against anti-ship missiles: Israel (1967 against Egypt, 2006 against Lebanon), the British navy (1982 against Argentina), the US (1987 in a friendly-fire attack by Iraq), and Iran (1988 against Iraq). Whatever US naval commanders say in public, they can hardly be confident that their antimissile systems would be effective against an onslaught of more modern Russian, Chinese and Iranian-made missiles. For the US Navy, losing a carrier to anti-ship missiles would be worse than a military disaster – it would mean the loss of a whole way of life. The US Navy would be forced to emulate the Israeli navy by scrapping most of its surface fleet, and relying mainly on submarines and small fast patrol craft. Which would you rather command – a surface ship, or a submarine that stays submerged for months at a time? It’s unlikely that the other services will endorse an attack on Iran unless the Navy can guarantee their supply lines through the Gulf, and even less likely Obama would authorize an attack against the advice of his military commanders.
According to an Iranian commander, for each US warship in the Gulf, 100 vessels (small boats most likely) have been allocated for attacking it:
http://www.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8905030048
So basically this says, yes, they are thinking about swarming tactics and suicide missions.
Just finished reading ‘The economist peril on the sea’ in The Economist.
The article claims Iran may already have acquired the anti-ship Sizzler missiles, which will take the US military at least a couple of years to defeat.
I am anything but a military hardware specialist, but perhaps these kind of missiles are Iran’s lifeline to avoid a ware. The rampage which Iran can cause in the Gulf will be so huge the US may decide the efforts are not worth the cost – that is if those who still have some of their brains together outsmart the neocon cabal.
Pirouz 2,
I’ll need more time than I have now to respond to your thoughtful post. For now, though, one comment which I hope you’ll agree with:
“I believe that the doves (which I think include a good portion of the top military guys) are already aware of the “teeth” that the lamb has, which is why some of them even mull the idea of the containment of a “nuclear” Iran.”
American government officials may “mull the idea of the containment of a nuclear Iran” for this reason or other reasons, but the most important aspect of this “containment v. attack” debate lies in its glossing over of the fact that a key assumption has not been established: whether or not there even IS a “nuclear Iran” to “contain” (or attack).
When I first started noticing a number of “containment” pieces (last year?), the debate was typically framed in a “conditional” way – for example (paraphrasing):
“If the US were to conclude that Iran had achieved nuclear weapons capability, would containment work?”
I had no objection to such a “hypothetical” debate-framing, though even then I was concerned that debaters would soon forget that the hypothesis was just that – a hypothesis.
More recently, though, the debate has often been framed as if the condition has already been satisfied, so that the only question left is whether “containment” or attack will be the best way to deal with this fact of life. Consider, for example, the opening sentence of Brett Stephens’ recent long piece in Commentary:
“Quietly within the foreign-policy machinery of the Obama administration—and quite openly in foreign-policy circles outside it—the idea is taking root that a nuclear Iran is probably inevitable and that the United States and its allies must begin to shift their attention from forestalling the outcome to preparing for its aftermath.”
Thousands of words followed this opening sentence. None addressed whether there is a sound basis for concluding that a nuclear-armed Iran is inevitable. Instead, Stephens discussed only the relative merits of containment or military force, concluding (predictably) that the latter would work much better.
Once an author has forced the debate into this new “box,” – containment v. attack – he’s excluded an alternative I believe remains available, and far preferable: recognize that there is NOT yet a “nuclear Iran,” nor is a “nuclear Iran” inevitable, so that the US need not choose between containment and war. Frankly, I’m not optimistic about which of those two choices would get made.
Cyrus/Kervick: Yes, just watched an animated video of the missile concept. Very fun animation. I’m downloading it just for the background music from Pirates of the Caribbean! :-)
Fyi: The point is that an attack in which is nearly certain that the attacker is going to die is called a suicide attack by observers. The belief system of the attacker is not relevant to the outcome.
The point I was making is that Iran MIGHT consider using the patrol boats as missiles themselves. You deny this, but based on reports out of Iran, there is evidence that Iran or at least some factions of the IRGC or other Iranian groups might well consider this.
That is all I’m trying to say. If you disagree, fine. I’m talking about a possibility, you’re talking certainty.
@ Michael Kerwick
Thanks, just saw the Novator promo video on youtube.
Very impressive.
Hopefully Iran can soon acquires some of these container missiles if Russia, considering UN-sanctions, allows a sale.
Richard Steven Hack:
Seeking martyrdom is not the same as suicide.
In WWII, in the Battle of Midway, numerous US pilots attacked Japanese fleet without any chance of scoring a single hit.
Those planes were all destroyed.
Were those pilot seeking suicide?
Likewise at numerous Japanese occupied islands.
Mr. Canning: Note Brill’s deception here.
We agree that the US public has been deceived into believing a lie.
Brill says: “But so what? The question is not why the American people believe this, nor whether they should believe.”
But his whole previous point is that if Iran “disclosed more”, it would affect the US public’s belief system!
When we say this belief system is set in stone, he simply says it doesn’t matter, dismissing that fact WITHOUT mentioning that he is dismissing that fact.
Truly an extremely intellectually dishonest position.
Fyi: I wouldn’t be too sure about Iran not being willing to use suicide bombers, if this article is correct. I can’t confirm any of this but it seems legit.
Iran’s Suicide Brigades
www dot cedarsrevolution dot net/jtphp/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=830&Itemid=2
Cyrus – I know they’ve offered them, that’s why I mentioned them.
As soon as Iran starts to acquire the S300 Missile System Obama calls in the timid press and says he would like to talk with Iran. To understand why the U.S. military are wary about attacking Iran one should do a web search on:
The economist peril on the sea
The Club-K Container Missile System, when laden on a ship and used by people who know that they are about to die when they use them, is a very formidable weapon. One can see how much damage a boat laden with home explosives can do to a double skinned Japanese tanker.
Videos on the Club K Container Missile System are on You Tube
Paul,
Many Iranians were initially hoping that Obama would be different from previous presidents. Today he is often seen as another George Bush. Regarding the elections, keep dreaming…
Score: Obama −273.15°C or 0 K (absolute zero)
Eric;
Regarding your comment on Aug 6th at 1:46PM:
I have said this many times before: I do believe that in the course of next few years there will be a military conflict between Iran and USA. Arnold does not think so. So on this particular matter he and I disagree and I most certainly hope that he is right and I am wrong.
So when I said that I agreed with him on his assessment that Iran is doing a good job, I did not mean to say that I agreed with him on his final conclusion that the war will not take place.
Let me try to push the limits of my English and try to elaborate on the issue as much as my language skills permit:
I believe that there are two groups of people among the US decision makers:
Doves (relatively sane) and hawks (completely insane).
I believe that the doves (which I think include a good portion of the top military guys) are already aware of the “teeth” that the lamb has, which is why some of them even mull the idea of the containment of a “nuclear” Iran. So these people, let alone being against an attack on Iran in case it continues the enrichment, they seem to be against an attack (and instead favouring “containment”) even if Iran goes nuclear the way N. Korea did.
Why? is their conscience bothering them about the innocent lives which will be lost if US attacks? I highly doubt. The sole reason that people such as Adm. Fallon were against an attack on Iran is because in light of the US victory(!!) in Iraq and Afghanistan, and knowing fully well that the military capabilities of Iran (and the amount of damage that it can cause) will make the idea of an attack EXTREMELY COSTLY for USA. They know that that adventure has a very dark end and it has a very dark end because Iran can indeed HURT BACK.
If they thought that they can get away with a “surgical” air campaign against selected targets, even at the cost of millions of IRANIAN lives, they would attack with all their might without a moment of hesitation. If the doves are so reluctant to attack it is not because of their big heart it is because they know about the “teeth” that the lamb has got!
There is another group however, who are in my opinion clinically “insane”. These guys are the Hawks.
I don’t know about you, but when in 2006, Israel attacked Lebanon, I didnt have the SLIGHTEST of doubts that it will be forced to withdraw in humiliation and it will be a total debacle from Israel’s point of view. How come, when Israel had the experience of 2000, when Iraq and Afghanistan were happening right in front of its eyes did commit such a stupidity? The best answer that occurs to me is “insanity” and perhaps a total “despair” caused by a total lack of choice (a dead end Israel created for itself since the assassination of Robin).
Why when shortly after the encirclement of the 6th army in stalingrad some German army chiefs tried to convince Hitler to make a break and retreat, he refused when it was obvious that he was signing the destruction of the whole 6th army? Insanity? a total “despair” caused by the lack of choices in the dead end Hitler himself had created? who can tell for sure?
Whatever their reasons are Hawks are moving in a direction which is harmful to THEMSELVES!
The more doves prevail the less will be the chances for USA to attack. The more hawks prevail the more will be the chances for USA to attack. The best way to increase the number of doves and decrease the number of hawks is by making a possible US campaign more and more costly. The more Iran gives in to the pressure, the more sticks it gives to USA (AP restrictions to be abused and used as a stick) the more the Hawks will emboldened and the more will be the number of decision makers who will think that “bullying” does pay off! The worse thing to do is to make a bully think that his bullying will pay off.
Paul
“This in turn directly led to the fraudulent elections last year, an attempt to solidify power domestically, so that they could open up externally. It failed, and continues to fail, and the regime is on a slow march of death. Precisely by not doing anything confrontational and by addressing Iran with respect Obama is winning the game. Obama 1, Khamenei 0.”
Does Enduring Scott sets up your scoring rules for this contest?
So we are being told that if Obama writes a letter to Khamenei, he is going over the head of the so called elected President. Yet if he writes a letter to Ahmadinejad, he is not addressing the real source of power in Iran. So basically he is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. Can the wonderful analysts get their own act together before advising the US President on what he should and should not do?
I tell you one thing: by de-escalating with Iran, Obama has already done wonders. A regime which has lived on confrontation with the US for 30 years, has had nothing to confront for a year or more now. This in turn directly led to the fraudulent elections last year, an attempt to solidify power domestically, so that they could open up externally. It failed, and continues to fail, and the regime is on a slow march of death. Precisely by not doing anything confrontational and by addressing Iran with respect Obama is winning the game. Obama 1, Khamenei 0.
fyi,
“Mr. Khamenei has stated: “You [Americans] cannot protect the oil installations”.”
What oil installations was he referring to?
Cyrus,
Thank you for the link to the New York Times article, in which Iran’s ambassador to the UN emphasized that Iran was cooperating fully with the IAEA:
“Lost amid the rhetoric is this: Iran has a strong interest in enhancing the integrity and authority of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. … Since October 2003, Iran has accepted a robust inspection regimen by the United Nations. We have allowed more than 1,700 person-days of inspections and adopted measures to address past reporting failures.”
Clearly Iran’s UN ambassador considered it important to emphasize Iran’s cooperation.
I notice the article is dated April 5, 2006.
Cyrus,
What do you believe is the US’ real objective?
Alan – regarding your post of August 6, 2010 at 5:48 am: Iran has already offered to do the things you mentioned, and more….and the US has already ignored these offers. Here, I’ll play a broken record: it doesn’t matter what compromises Iran offers. The entire nuclear issue is pretextual. It doesn’t even matter if IRan gives up enrichment entirely because the US can continue to claim that only an ‘overt’ enrichment program was given up, and demand that Iran proves the negative that it doesn’t have a secret nuclear program, or doesnt still secretly harbor the “intentions to obtain capabilities” to make nukes. WOrse comes to worst, New issues can always be cooked up in the place of the nuclear issue as a pretext.
paul:
Russia and China will not help US in any way, shape or form in a war against Iran.
I do not know what US high command thinks.
Based on public information, I am led to conclude that the US High Command is actually against such a war. I am impressed by the depth of their capabilities and education.
I think that US politicians, on the other hand, are a sorry lot.
Liz:
It is not clear that he is weak.
As far as I can tell, he started with a weak hand with Iran.
By that I mean that I have never ever read a plausible collection of benefits that Iran could receive from US.
Things like spare parts for airplanes, or being able to buy Boeing or Airbus passenger airliners (so we give you the privilege of spending your money with us) are not benefits to Iran; it seems to me.
The only things that Iranians have been interested is the cessation of US Cold War against Iran.
Mr. Obama, having realized the emptiness of his diplomatic bag of goodies, doubled-down on increasing sanctions on Iran. So he extended that Cold War hoping to translate that into leverage.
Mr. Khamenei already had stated: “Do not try this country with sanctions.”
Mr. Obama ignored that advice.
Mr. Khamenei also publicly complained – last year -: “What kind of change is that they oppose us in every diplomatic fora?”
I think that Mr. Broujerdi’s assessment – made in 2007 – that US-Iran differences are irresolvable are, unfortunately correct.
Effective negotiations will be possible but only after U.S. recognizes that Iran has come out of the US-Iraq war with a much enhanced position in the Middle East.
The planning staffs in the White House, the Pentagon, and the State Department must also acknowledge, to themselves at least, that US cannot prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In practical terms this would mean that US must take the nuclear file off the table. That step is necessary if she wants to revolutionize her position in the Middle East.
The same staffs must also accept that US has little control over the dynamics of Iraq, Arab-Israeli War, and Afghanistan.
Once these facts are accepted, US could move with planning. Until then, we shall see these tactical responses emanating from D.C.
Paul,
“Obama is working very hard to repudiate that 2007 NIE, to the extent of firing folks who might derail the rewrite, such as Blair.”
My understanding is that the 2010 reaches essentially the same conclusion, and that those in the US administration who want that same conclusion to be changed in the report have failed in the effort. Plan B, I understand, consists of keeping the 2010 out of public view. This will permit a little “spin,” of course, but the 2010 NIE has already been leaked enough that the spinners must know their “creativity” will be pretty well circumscribed.
Right on, Liz. The US Hardliners are providing wonderful political cover for Obama, as are the alternapundits on the other side of the political spectrum.
Fyi, you seem to be ignoring the fact that what Obama has ‘achieved’ is a major escalation of the economic war, to the point where to refuse to call it a war, as alternapundits continue to do, is verging on the same duplicity that pundits and ‘journalists’ showed during the Clinton years, when Clinton was fighting an unrecognized war against Iraq.
And to claim that Obama will feel compelled to wait 2 years for further action is quite a weak argument, I think. On one hand, I might agree that Obama is the narcissistic sort who might very much like to take a couple of years to stand back and watch his handiwork, but the real ‘achievement’ was that by getting Russia and China to sign onto the latest sanctions, he has essentially gotten their agreement to war (meaningless codicils aside). There is no way they will interfere when the US/Israel complex attacks Iran. There may be a two year wait. A stronger reason for that is that the US High Command would like to weaken Iran the way Iraq was weakened. They want their war to be a guaranteed ‘success’. They don’t like fighting anyone who can actually fight back, even a little. But I think it all really depends on many factors intersecting. How ready is the Green Coup to take over government in Iran? Have China and Russia provided key technical information to help take down key defensive weapon systems in Iran? How will the war affect Obama’s chances to prevail in the coming election? How will it affect the dollar? Are ‘assets’ maximally deployed? How much is the element of surprise wanted? Are there any ‘incidents’ that provide opportunity? Has Obama’s progressive base been sufficiently softened up to embrace the latest Obamian war? On and on, there are so many situational complexities that have a bearing. The war could happen tomorrow. Next Week. Next year.
Note too the sheer recklessness of this approach, by the US High Command, that keeps Iran in suspence. That encourages not only a hair trigger in Iran, but also a mentality that will probably encourage Iran to shoot everything they’ve got as fast as they can once the fighting starts. Use it or lose it. THE US HIGH COMMAND WOULD NOT BE DOING THIS IF THEY DIDN’T WANT WAR.
While I think MHF is talking nonsense for the most part, it does seem that Obama is a weak president (and a person who even lies when writing letters to foreign leaders such as the Brazilian president) who does not have the courage to bring about real change in US foreign policy. He is taking an immoral stance and allowing hardliners in DC to take the initiative.
One keeps hearing that the US military thinks a war with Iran would be a catastrophe. Well, the US High Command seems to like catastrophe, seems the whole war policy seems to be geared towards creating catastrophes. How, in a stable world, would a Hegemon expand its power? How, in a stable world, could the arms industry continue to expand globally, led by the US?
In particular, according to reports, the Military is increasingly dominated by religious fanatics tinged with millennialism, especially the Air Force, which would, of course, be the main factor in a war against Iran.
it’s just been amazing to observe, as the US High Command talks up war more and more, the alternapunditocracy finds more and more little shreds of what they call ‘realism’ to cling to as ‘proof’ that any concern that there might be a war is just alarmism.
Here is Bush from 2006, sounding almost exactly like Obama, except for that difference in tone that so many continue to make so much of …
“US President George W. Bush said he hoped to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran with diplomacy, but warned Tehran he would “use military might” if necessary to defend Israel.
“The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That’s a threat, a serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace,” the US president said after a speech defending the war in Iraq.
“I made it clear, and I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel,” said Bush, who was apparently referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s call for the destruction of Israel.
On the atomic dispute, Bush said he hoped “to solve this issue diplomatically” with a “united message” to Tehran from Washington, London, Paris, Berlin as well as Russia “hopefully” and China.
The message would be that “your desire to having a nuclear weapon is unacceptable,” he said.”
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=060320195105.4089dcoq&show_article=1
‘Ah, but Bush didn’t attack Iran’, eager alternapundits will say. But, of course, as they know, Bush came close and almost certainly would have, were it not for the 2007 NIE, and they also know that Obama is working very hard to repudiate that 2007 NIE, to the extent of firing folks who might derail the rewrite, such as Blair.
But sure, yeah, everytime Mullen or Gates or Hillary or Biden or Obama says ‘we prefer a diplomatic solution, but the military option remains very much on the table and we support anything Israel does, by the way, oh, and here’s an economic war for you’, hey, just listen to the ‘we prefer a diplomatic solution’ part and ignore the rest (and also ignore the fact that Brazil and Turkey showed Obama what real negotiation is and he showed them exactly what he thought of that with a quick punch in the face).
paul:
US has been waging an economic war against Iran since 1995. That is not new.
What is new is the addition of EU to that.
In regards to the Russia-Iran Wedge; that and the sanctions have been Mr. Obama’s achievement.
But Russia-Iran Wedge is irrelevant to US-Iran War. Russia, China, EU or any other state actor cannot prevent a war of choice by US against Iran.
But you are correct that Obama has to climb down a lot more to reach an accomodation with Iran.
My hunch is that nothing of substance will occur.
He has paid too much, in a manner of speaking, for his diplomatic achievemnts to discard them now.
He is bound to wait 2 years.
As a clearer picture of the Obama Secret Peace Session comes out, it becomes clearer and clearer that, as usual, the ultimate gist was an increased threat against Iran. It’s quite telling that, according to this account, which is the most complete I’ve seen so far, Obama’s supposed peace-y offer of ‘a clear set of steps for Iran to say yes to’ was linked by Obama to the concept of RED LINES. That means it was just another version of the same trick we’ve seen again and again from Obusha: negotiation ‘offers’ that are just ultimatums in disguise.
“he United States had to keep looking at “all available options” (force?) that might be able to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb. He was not ready to lay down any public red lines “at this point”. Interestingly, he did say that it was important to set out for the Iranians a clear set of steps that America would accept as proof that the regime was not pursuing a bomb: they needed “a pathway”. With hard work, America and Iran could thaw a 30-year period of antagonism—provided Iran began to act responsibly.”
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/08/america_and_iran
This is all just more brinksmanship, spiced with Ultimatums. As this writer points out, correctly, Obama’s big ‘achievement’ re. Iran has been driving a wedge between Russia and Iran. That ‘achievement’ smoothed the way to war, and the economic component of that war has now begun in earnest. One might even say that the whole point of the Secret Peace Session was for Obama to take a private victory lap for his great achievement of bringing the Russians on board for the economic portion of his war on Iran. One of the writers who was there even called it a victory dance. I was thinking that it was a bit of a lap dance too. Obama seems to be quite aware that many ‘journalists’ and alternapundits just thrill at the nearness of POWER. He figured he could turn them to putty with his little Secret Peace Session, and it seems he did.
In case you’ve missed MHF’s post below, pay special attention to his point #4. I wonder whether other people might agree with MHF about this.
Eric A. Brill:
Mr. Khamenei has stated: “You [Americans] cannot protect the oil installations”.
James Canning:
Why would any one wish to pressure Iran – including Pakistan?
Beats me.
You should ask them.
My general feeling is that non-Iranians envy Iran since it is one of the few ancient people that has survived to the present. In that one must seek the source of Arab malice towards Iran (and Israel).
There are no ancient people among Muslims – nada/zilch – except Iranians who resurrected, just like Israelis, an ancint name.
James,
“I agree with you Iran would blunder badly if it withdrew from the NPT. In fact, it would be a castrophic mistake.”
Why do you think so?
James,
You wrote to Richard, and I agree with both of you on this:
“You are quite right, that the prevailing “belief” of most Americans, that Iran has nukes or is building them now, is quasi-religious, and obviously the product of relentless lying and other deception by American politicians, commentators, reporters, etc. …”
But so what? The question is not why the American people believe this, nor whether they should believe. We all agree that they believe – isn’t that the point? Is a mistaken belief any easier to change merely because it is a “religious” belief? Hasn’t history shown often enough that “religious” beliefs can be the most dangerous type?
Eric,
I agree with you Iran would blunder badly if it withdrew from the NPT. In fact, it would be a castrophic mistake.
There is little doubt among American military leaders that an attack on Iran would likely be a disaster. The British foreign secretary is convinced it would be a catastrophe.
MHF,
Wasn’t it a group of Republicans in the US Senate that foolishly blocked ratification of the SALT II treaty in 1979? This was a primary cause of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Didn’t Reagan’s Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, encourage the Israeli rampage in Lebanon in 1882? This rampage in effect created Hezbollah.
Arnold,
Pirouz 2 quoted Arnold’s comment:
“If Iran wants to avoid the attack Iraq received, it must demonstrate to US professional military decision makers and strategists that it can harm the US enough that an attack would not be worth it. Iran is doing a good job of that so far. Hopefully Iran will continue as it is.”
And then Pirouz 2 replied:
“I agree with this assessment 100%.”
Let’s assume here that Arnold is correct: The extent of Iran’s nuclear-program disclosures is irrelevant to the US when it decides whether or not to attack Iran. There is only one simple reason the US hasn’t attacked Iran: because Iran is doing such a “good job” of demonstrating to “US professional military decision makers and strategists that [Iran] can harm the US enough that an attack would not be worth it.” All that Iran needs to do, therefore, is just “continue as it is,” and the US will continue to reach the same no-attack decision.
Sounds like pretty good advice. But if what you say is true, the question seems obvious:
Why are you not recommending that Iran simply withdraw from the NPT right now?
Iran has complained loudly and often, after all, even about its existing disclosure obligations, and correctly points out that the nuclear-weapons states aren’t providing the assistance they promised to Iran under the NPT. If Iran is not getting what it was promised out of the NPT, why should it continue to perform its NPT obligations when it’s indisputably free to withdraw at any time?
Presumably Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT would not affect the view of “US professional military decision makers and strategists that [Iran] can harm the US enough that an attack would not be worth it.” Isn’t Iran likely to become even stronger, and to achieve its “Japan option” status, a whole lot quicker without a bunch of nosy IAEA inspectors snooping around and asking impertinent questions? If so, aren’t you exposing the Iranian people to unnecessary risk by not recommending that Iran withdraw immediately from the NPT?
I can’t help but wonder whether Iran hasn’t withdrawn from the NPT because it agrees with me: there indeed is some “shield” value in Iran’s continued compliance with the NPT and its Safeguards Agreement. If so, my disagreement with Iran’s present course appears to be only a matter of degree: Iran feels it should limit its disclosures to what it promised in the 1970′s, while I recommend it should expand them to the updated disclosure scheme drafted in the 1990′s – after the IAEA discovered, much to its surprise and dismay, that the 1970′s monitoring scheme had failed to detect the weapons-development schemes of Iraq and North Korea.
It would appear, though, that Iran and I disagree with your view: that Iran’s nuclear-program disclosures make no difference at all to the US when it decides whether or not to attack Iran. We think it matters. You don’t.
Eric,
Re: Aug. 6th, 12:16am – - Iran has a very large interest in Afghanistan, and the presidents of Tadjikstan, Afghanistan and Iran met the other day to discuss their common interest in stability in Afghanistan. Iran has more than two million Afghan refugees it wants to be able to return home, plus another one million Afghans working illegally (technically) in Iran because conditions do not afford employment at home.
There are plans for future road and rail connections and associated economic development.
fyi,
Why would Pakistan want to pressure Iran?
MHF wrote: “focused on removal of a cancerous growth in Middle East that is called Mullah government in Iran.”
Eight Stages of Genocide, Greg Stanton:
3. DEHUMANIZATION: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases. Dehumanization overcomes the normal human revulsion against murder. At this stage, hate propaganda in print and on hate radios is used to vilify the victim group.
to paraphrase what Kamran and Eric Brill observed downthread,
QUOTE:” (kamran) “Always keep this in mind, as one of my former professors said, when Ayatollah Khamenei or Seyed Hassan Nasrallah someone with a destructive agenda say[s] something, they mean it.”
(Eric Brill) My impression is that your former professor was right. Americans have such a distrust of politicians that few of them understand this.”" ENDQUOTE
When someone starts on the path to genocide, their movements should be carefully watched and derailed if at all possible.
Richar Steven Hack,
You are quite right, that the prevailing “belief” of most Americans, that Iran has nukes or is building them now, is quasi-religious, and obviously the product of relentless lying and other deception by American politicians, commentators, reporters, etc etc etc.
James: When MHF writes “The entire policy of U.S. should be focused on removal of a cancerous growth”…
Right, the “other” are an “illness” to be excised, and the “entire policy of US” should be focused on it. Does this language remind one of anything?
kooshy,
The polls show the plummeting popularity of Obama in the Arab world stems from his obvious near-total capitulation to the Israel lobby. As Taki says, an “Israeli Fifth Column” is calling the shots in Washinton.
MHF,
You praise the “great vision” of Ronald Reagan and decry Jimmy Carter. Don’t you have this upside-down? Carter saw the need to get Israel out of the West Bank, the Golan Heights, Gaza and the Sinai. Reagan did nothing toward ending the occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights. But he did manage to squander many hundreds of billions of dollars on unnecessary or useless weapons.
Kamran,
“Always keep this in mind, as one of my former professors said, when Ayatollah Khamenei or Seyed Hassan Nasrallah say something, they mean it.”
My impression is that your former professor was right. Americans have such a distrust of politicians that few of them understand this.
Richard Steven Hack:
Shia Muslims do not do the “suicide dive” thing.
You must be thinking of the Kamikaze pilots, Tamil Tigers, or Sunni Muslims.
Pirouz: Of course, but once you’ve fired your missiles (and torpedoes, the boats have both) and the target isn’t down, it would be nice to be able to do a suicide dive into your target to finish the job,
Arnold Evans wrote:
“If Iran wants to avoid the attack Iraq received, it must demonstrate to US professional military decision makers and strategists that it can harm the US enough that an attack would not be worth it. Iran is doing a good job of that so far. Hopefully Iran will continue as it is.”
I agree with this assessment 100%.
The ONLY way to prevent a war between US and Iran, is that Iran can demonstrate that it can harm US/Israel substantially enough to make an attack not worth its while.
A few days ago I posted a poem by La Fontaine (the wolf and the lamb), I believe that poem sums it up fairly well.
No matter how strong a reason how complete a “disclosure” the lamb makes (and it has made full disclosure already), it will not make the wolf change its mind: THE STRONGEST OF THE REASONS ALWAYS YIELDS TO THE REASONS OF THE STRONGEST!!
The ONLY way for the lamb to prevent the wolf from eating it up is to develop its own “teeth”; I am not suggesting that it should become as strong as the wolf (and it is not physically possible anyway) but it HAS to demonstrate to the wolf that it can hurt him enough not to make the meal worth its while!
With uninformed folks like Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett working for Clinton State Dept., no wonder that the entire U.S. security system was sleeping on the wheel(!) on 9/11.
1. Leveretts have quoted Iranian mafia-in-charge that they are not trying to make bomb, and use that declaration to criticize U.S. policy. What they do not understand is that in Mullah-world, lying for the progress of their ideology (read filling their pockets) is perfectly permitted, and in fact “good,” religiously!
2. I have not heard Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, or their assistants, talk about the problem that was initially created by an unqualified Democratic President, Jimmy Carter. Do we not have to learn what caused the problem, so that we know how to avoid it in the future, as well as trying to get the mess cleaned up?
3. The entire policy of U.S. should be focused on removal of a cancerous growth in Middle East that is called Mullah government in Iran, not just placing band aid here and there. I can understand that this may not be a simple work, but all efforts should be in that direction. It took about 75 years to get rid of another cancer in that general area called Soviet Union, but this one is much more wide spread because it is based on fooling simple and religious population, backed by “free dollars coming from selling petroleum,” and false hope that these mafia tries to create to keep them uninformed. The first step in that direction was taken by Bush in Iraq, but military system screwed it up in implementation. This does not mean that we should forget about the problem, and let the cancer to grow!
4. Under current U.S. military and economic circumstances, I am afraid that U.S. has no choice but to keep using band aid (clever band aids supporting the general over all policy) until hopefully another Ronald Reagan comes along in the ranks. Mr. Obama, although tremendously bright with good intentions, is not the right person to revive U.S. with a great vision similar to Reagan. Therefore, we are stuck with what we have until after 2012, or at the latest, 2016, for this problem to be resolved.
Iran Benefits from Arab Disillusion with Obama
by Jim Lobe, August 06, 2010
U.S. President Barack Obama has suffered a sharp drop in popularity in the Arab world over the past year, and Iran may be reaping the benefits, according to a major new survey of public opinion in five Arab countries released here Thursday.
Only 20 percent of respondents in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) now view the U.S. president positively, compared to 45 percent who did so in the spring of 2009, according to the 2010 Arab Public Opinion Poll conducted by Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution and the Zogby International polling firm.
Moreover, negative views of Obama have skyrocketed – from 23 percent to 62 percent – since the last poll was conducted in April-May 2009. The new findings were based on interviews with nearly 4,000 adults in the six countries between Jun. 29 and Jul. 20 this year.
When respondents were asked to name the world leader they admired most, Obama’s standing was less than one percent. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was cited most often (20 percent), followed by last year’s top pick, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez (13 percent), and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (12 percent).
Erdogan’s rapid rise to the top – he was cited by only four percent last year and never mentioned in the 2008 survey – was due to his outspoken denunciation of the 2008-9 Gaza war waged by Israel and the Turkish role in the aid flotilla to Gaza that was intercepted by Israeli commandos at the end of May, noted Telhami.
Much of the disillusionment with Obama appears related to his failure to make progress in achieving a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, according to Telhami, who has conducted eight previous surveys of Arab opinion since 2000.
Asked what policies pursued by the Obama administration they were most disappointed with, 61 percent of respondents in the new poll identified the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. That was more than twice the percentage of the next-most- cited example, Washington’s Iraq policy (27 percent).
“This is the prism through which Arabs view the Untied States,” Telhami said, referring to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
Iran appears to have benefited, at least indirectly, from Arab disillusionment with Obama, the poll results suggested.
While a majority of respondents (55 percent) said they believe Tehran’s nuclear program is aimed at developing weapons – a charge denied by Iran – nearly four out of five respondents (77 percent) said the country has the right to pursue the program – a whopping increase of 24 percent since last year.
Support for the program was strongest by far in Egypt and Morocco and weakest in the UAE, where a strong majority said Iran should be pressured to halt it.
Conversely, only 20 percent of respondents said they favored applying international pressure on Iran to curb its nuclear program That was down from the 40 percent who took that position one year ago.
“Overall, there is very little support here for the notion that Arabs are secretly yearning for the U.S. to attack Iran,” wrote Marc Lynch, a Mideast expert at George Washington University, whose blog on foreignpolicy.com has a wide readership among elite sectors here. “Really little.”
Moreover, a solid majority (57 percent) of respondents agreed that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it would lead to a “more positive” outcome in the Middle East region. That was nearly twice the percentage of one year ago (29 percent). By contrast, only 21 percent said that it would lead to a “more negative outcome”, compared to a plurality of 46 percent who took that position in 2009.
These results, Telhami said, are “highly correlated to how (respondents) feel about U.S. policy. It’s mostly an expression of anger and pessimism about U.S. policy.”
Speaking before a standing-room-only audience at Brookings, Telhami stressed that the Arab world, unlike some other key regions, was never “in love with Obama”, but that his election had raised their hopes, particularly after the eight-year reign of President George W. Bush who was consistently rated with former Israeli prime ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert as the global leader most disliked by Arabs in Telhami’s surveys.
Hopes for Obama rose even further after his Jun. 4, 2009 speech in Cairo where he pledged to “seek a new beginning” in relations between the United States and the Islamic world and expressed particular sympathy for the plight of Palestinians, especially in Gaza.
But those hopes appear to have largely collapsed over the past year, according to the survey’s findings. While he remains a somewhat attractive figure to many Arabs – 48 percent said they had a favorable personal view of him – an overwhelming majority (89 percent) said that he either would not or could not change basic U.S. policies in the region.
In one of the most remarkable findings, only 12 percent of respondents said they had a favorable view of the United States. That was three percentage points less than in the 2008 survey when Bush was still president. At the same time, however, the survey found a significant drop in those with “very unfavorable” views of the United States – from 64 percent in 2008 to 47 percent in the latest poll.
Asked what two steps Washington could take that would most improve their views of the U.S., respondents cited achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, withdrawing from Iraq, stopping aid to Israel, and withdrawing from the Arabian Peninsula in that order. Democracy promotion and economic aid received much less support.
Asked which two factors they believed were most important in driving U.S. policy in the Middle East, respondents most commonly cited protecting Israel, controlling oil, weakening the Muslim world, and preserving regional and global dominance in that order. Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, promoting stability, fighting terrorism, and spreading human rights and democracy received many fewer mentions.
Asked what two countries posed the greatest threats to them personally, respondents cited Israel (88 percent) and the U.S. (77 percent) – exactly the same results as in the 2009 survey. When Bush was still president, 95 percent of respondents cited Israel; 88 percent, the U.S. By contrast, Iran was cited by 10 percent of respondents, down from 13 percent last year.
On Israel, the new survey found a significant increase in the belief that the Jewish state exercises a more powerful influence on the U.S. than the other way around.
Asked what motivates Israeli policies and U.S. support for them, a plurality of 47 percent said they believe “Israel decides on its own interests and influences the U.S.,” compared to 24 percent who took that position two years ago. By contrast, 20 percent said they believed “Israel is a tool of American foreign policy,” while 33 percent agreed that the “U.S. and Israel have mutual interests.”
Pessimism about prospects for a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement in the medium term has also increased in the last two years. While 40 percent believe such a settlement is “inevitable”, only four percent said they thought it will happen in the next five years – down from 13 percent in 2008. A majority of 54 percent believe such an accord will never happen.
As to their own view about such a peace, a record 86 percent of respondents said they were prepared for peace if Israel was willing to return all the territories it captured in the 1967 war, including East Jerusalem. But 56 percent said they believed “Israel will never give up these territories easily.”
Twelve percent said that Arabs should continue to fight even if Israel agrees to such a compromise. Last year, 25 percent of respondents took that position.
Dr. Chomsky calls himself a supporter of Israel but defends Dr. Ahmadinejad and Hizbullah’s right to carry arms as deterrant against Israel.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/chomsky-i-regard-myself-as-a-supporter-of-israel/
Richard, it’s a heckuva lot more lethal firing those AShM than loading itself with TNT and trying to crash into something. And make no mistake about it, their first round counterstrike armament is the former, nit the latter.
Paul: I agree with you. Obama was merely doing some PR to try to shore up his credibility on Iran, especially after the Brazilians revealed he was a liar by leaking his letter to the Brazilian President on the fuel swap deal.
Also, he was probably giving “marching orders” to the press to continue to support his charade.
Obama is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”. Like Brill, he talks a good game, but has an ulterior agenda.
Fiorangela: “One script.” Good point. Obama was clearly using the “mad mullah” script just like Netanyahu.
Pirouz: I think they were talking about an actual suicide attack, using the boat loaded with explosives to evade anti-ship fire with its speed, then crashing into a US naval craft.
Rather expensive way to fight, but if one of these boats loaded with enough explosive could take out a US destroyer, that would be more than adequate.
Eric – regarding NPT Review/Rebecca Johnson, the view that the AP was voluntary prevailed of course. The NNWS in effect managed to set up compulsory APs as a quid pro quo for actual NWS disarmament.
Regarding the 20% deal thing, the deal on it’s own would not simply be an acknowledgement of enrichment rights in exchange for a ceasing of enrichment to 20%. It would entail the APs (perhaps even more – Iran in the past has offered to have inspectors permanently stationed at nuclear sites), some kind of resolution of outstanding IAEA issues v. the sanctions and UNSC resolutions, some kind of control over LEU produced, such as conversion to fuel rods or a maximum stockpile not converted to fuel rods, perhaps limitation to 3-4% enrichment only, perhaps some kind of nuclear assistance to Iran in Iran, and TRR fuel.
So “three-quarters” was perhaps an exaggeration, but the other issues can be successfully built around those two big ones I think, if both sides want to.
Regarding your longer post, I appreciate your reply. On the APs and Iran, I think Iran can do more to help their cause without actually implementing the APs, however I acknowledge the impact an AP implementation could have. It is still something though that may be useful for Iran to retain for a comprehensive negotiation, i.e. to create more impact as part of a combination of things that covers wider issues.
Eric,
Iran should not implement the AP because:
1- It should not do anything without getting something in return.
2- Since the US government is extraordinarily foolish, it will interpret such a move as a sign of weakness and will then insist on applying more pressure.
3- The US had regularly used its influence on IAEA inspectors to have them inspect military sites that had nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program. This, of course, discredited the IAEA in the eyes of Iranians. Iran would be foolish to allow a pretty sick US president, who constantly threatens the Iranian people with war, access to military secrets.
Time is on Iran’s side and the US is rapidly losing the Middle East. US hostility towards Iran only makes the general population more hostile towards the US and it forces the Iranians to make an already very tough situation for the US even tougher. Iranians know that the US can’t win a war against the country and people in power in the US know that even a limited attack against Iran will result in a powerful Iranian response. Always keep this in mind, as one of my former professors said, when Ayatollah Khamenei or Seyed Hassan Nasrallah say something, they mean it.
In essence, what Obama said in his Secret Peace Session was akin to what Mullen said the other day – ‘we don’t want to attack Iran but we might’. Folks, that’s a threat. It’s like walking up to someone and saying “I don’t want to punch you, don’t make me punch you.” Will they see that as a threat? Yes. Is it a threat? Yes. Is it a step towards peace? No. Is it a way to make friends? No.
It’s really no longer at all acceptable to continue to accept counterfeit money from Obama. We know by now that it is counterfeit. Pay attention not to what he says, but to the direction he is actually moving in. That direction is unmistakably towards war.
The way attendees and others have responded to The Secret Peacemaker’s Super Secret Peace Session, as summarized by the Leverettes and others …
“it is not clear that the Iranians will receive whatever signal the President is trying to send through his meeting with a group of Western journalists. It seems that not all the journalists got the signal. While Ignatius emphasizes Obama’s strategic depth and genuine interest in a peaceful nuclear settlement, The Economist’s Peter David reports that Obama “unveiled no new policy” and began “to talk more about the other unspecified ‘options on the table’”. Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic thinks the real point was to send a message—to non-Iranian international and U.S. domestic audiences—that “Obama’s policy of engagement joined with sanctions is having the desired effect of isolating Iran from the international community” and that it will be at least a year before Tehran comes close to even a theoretically plausible nuclear “breakout” capability. Ambinder’s colleague, Jeffrey Goldberg, “got the sense that this session represented something of a victory lap for [Obama’s] national security team”. (Goldberg’s presence in the briefing suggests to us that at least part of the Administration’s agenda was to send reassuring messages to Israel and pro-Israel constituencies in the United States.)”
… demonstrates that the Secret Peace Session was yet another Obamian Rorshach moment. Different folks saw what they wanted to see in Obama’s presentation, because his special quality as a politician is precisely an unusually broad ability to be all things to all people. That should give us all a clue that the Secret Peace Session was not about policy. It was pure propaganda. And Obama, as he typically does, tried to make sure that everybody got something. And what his progressive base got was what he always gives them – some rhetoric with nothing behind it. So this conclusion of the Leverettes …
“On a positive note, Obama’s Iran briefing at least affirms that he does not believe there is any reason, in the near-to-medium term, for a military confrontation. But it also provides no indication that Obama has a genuinely substantive plan to put U.S.-Iranian relations on a more stable and strategically productive footing.”
…is solid, as far as the second sentence goes, but unjustified, as far as the first sentence goes. If enrichment were the issue, then there would NEVER be any legitimate reason for a military confrontation. But it isn’t and never has been. Whatever this is all about, it ISN’T about uranium.
But putting that aside for a moment, for Obama to say that he doesn’t want war doesn’t amount to anything more than Bush saying he doesn’t want war. It’s nothing but political cover, and it might come off a little bit more sincerely when Obama says it, but that’s because his audience needs that. If he sounds sincere and says “peace” and “engagement”, his base will eat it up. Then, when he goes to war, he can claim that he tried his best, and his base will eat that up too.
We simply CANNOT continue the level of analysis that gives Obama credit for good intentions, because he says some relatively good things at times, while explaining away his failure to follow through on those good intentions on others, such as a divided staff, the power of the Israel Lobby and the War Party, etc., etc.. It never made sense to do this, but it is certainly no longer remotely credible. By now we have to see the pattern. Obama’s rhetoric sometimes moves in a constructive direction, but his doings do not. His ‘signal’ is precisely the thing not to believe. If he says he is doing x, you can be sure that it is far more likely that he is doing whatever is the opposite to x.
And so it’s not surprising that if you look a little deeper into what Obama says in this Secret Peace Session, it’s the same escalating rhetoric we’ve seen all along. There is no change whatsoever on that level, and so any ‘negotiations’ that ocurr can be expected to play the same role they have played all along, the one Clinton predicted early in Obama’s regime: to convince allies and observers of ‘the next step’ that America did all that it could to avoid war (though America certainly didn’t); IT IS A STEP TOWARDS WAR, NOT AWAY FROM IT.
Eric A. Brill:
Yes, Afghanistan is a sink-hole of moneyand Iranian people will never support any costly intervention in that country and will not be willing to share their oil money with Afghans.
Afghanistan should be declared a neutral country and be left alone to recover over the next 3 generations. There is nothing in Afghanisatn for anyone.
I personally think that Afghanistan-as-strategic-depth-for-Pakistan is also a chimera, a fool’s errand. Specially given that Pakistan is also bankrupt.
Saudis and Pakistanis cannot put any sustained pressur on Iran through Afghanistan either; it is another silly game that they cannot win.
fyi,
Thanks. When I was reading about the Francop incident, I don’t recall there being any S-300 missiles in the cargo and, as I mentioned, Iran’s own strong desire to get S-300′s for its own use made me doubt that Iran would ship them off to Hezbollah.
Kurtzer was presumably reporting only what he’s heard from Israeli military people, who are necessarily guessing to a great extent about what Hezbollah really has.
Yet another example of how limited knowledge about an adversary’s capabilities can induce a country to exaggerate the threat posed by that adversary.
fyi,
You wrote to Kooshy:
“I am confident that Iran will be more comfortable with US leaving Afghanistan and Taliban being in Kabul than with US staying in Afghanistan. The presence of US troops, without any clear discernible strategic objective, is looked at suspiciously by Tehran…. The religious establishment in Najaf, Karbala, Qom, Isphahan, Mashad, Shiraz and other places will never ever give up on Iraq Shias again. Iran will go to war over that….That situation does not obtain regarding the Taliban.”
Very persuasive.
As I think more about this, I doubt that Iran has any interest in Afghanistan except to see US troops leave ASAP. Maybe Iran’s leaders “hate” the Taliban, but I doubt they consider them any threat to Iran. So if the US and Karzai want to cut a “graceful exit” deal to share power with the Taliban and ask for Iran’s “participation,” I think Iran’s instant response would be: “Where do we sign?”
Eric A. Brill:
There is no chance of such large systems being delivered to Hezbullah.
Kurtzer is wrong.
The IAF will be relying mostly on helicopter gunships and low flying airplanes for close infantry support. These platforms are susceptible to man portable SAMs.
I do not know if anyone has supplied Hezbullah with such weapons.
fyi,
Thanks. Kurtzer referred specifically to S-300′s, though. I’d understood Russia makes them. Do you know the likely route they’d take to get to Hezbollah?
Kooshy,
“[Iranians] have to work with the American government they have, not the American government they want.”
Exactly.
Eric A. Brill:
There are all kinds of SAMs.
Stinger missiles, for example.
James (and others):
Daniel Kurtzer’s piece (discussed in the Leveretts’ preceding thread) included this sentence:
“Another Israeli “red line” is Hezbollah’s acquisition of advanced surface-to-air missiles, such as the
S-300, which would reduce Israel’s air superiority over Lebanon.”
Aren’t these the same Russian missiles that Iran has been trying to get from Russia but which the US has so far persuaded Russia not to deliver? I recall hearing that the delivery was put off yet again when the latest round of UNSC sanctions was approved. If that’s so, I would assume that if Iran already has some S-300 missiles lying around, it would not be inclined to ship them to Hezbollah in Lebanon or Syria, especially since there would be no small risk that a lot of them wouldn’t get through anyway.
But if Iran is not supplying them, where would Hezbollah be getting them from? Syria?
Fiorangela:
Yes, US needs help in Afghanistan and the only help Iranians are going to provide is to arrange NATO (US) departing Afghanistan in an orderly manner and not under fire. This is what the Iranians have done in Iraq.
kooshy:
I am confident that Iran will be more comfortable with US leaving Afghanistan and Taliban being in Kabul thatn with US staying in Afghanistan. The presence of US troops, without any clear discernible stragetic objective, is looked at suspiciously by Tehran.
Furthermore, unless one has been to Mashad, Karbala and Najaf during Shia religious festivals, oen cannot grasp, in concrete terms, the affinity of the Shia of Iran and Iraq. They almost act like one people, distinctions of Arab, Persain, Azeri notwithstanding. The religious establishment in Najaf, Karbala, Qom, Isphahan, Mashad, Shiraz and other places will never ever give up on Iraq Shias again. Iran will go to war over that.
That situation does not obtain regarding the Taliban.
James Canning:
There is no scope for cooperation against drug smuggling. US is quite happy to add to the burden of Iran in this case; just like EU. Only UN has given some help to Iran in this regard.
Were it not for the corrosive effects of the drug trade on Iran (look at Mexico) I would have liked Iran to facilitate the drug trade. Let EU deal with the consequences.
In regards to NYC-Tehran flight; we are in the post snaction phase. Nothing substantial will be accomplished between US and Iran for the next few years. May be TRR will be re-fueled, may be not. That is a minor point.
The sanctions will cause Iranians to reform their macro-economy even more (taxes, privatized insurance, elimination of food and energy subsidies) while diversifying their trade away from EU. These will be permanent changes.
Richard Steven Hack:
two mouths, one script:
Barack Obama: “Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons, and “changing their calculations is very difficult. . . . It may be that their ideological commitment to nuclear weapons is such that they are not making a cost-benefit analysis,” the president said.”
Benjamin Netanyahu: “Sanctions wont work says . . . Netanyahu. . .“a nuclear Iran couldn’t be contained”. “You can’t rely on the fact that they’ll obey the calculations of cost and benefit that governed all nuclear powers since the rise of the nuclear age” says the Israeli leader. . . .the threat of military invasion “might actually have the only real effect on Iran, if they think it’s true” says Netanyahu.
Richard, there are problems with that Asia Times piece.
For the example you cited, how is it a “suicide mission” for a IPS-16 using AShMs? Survivability may or may not be low, but it doesn’t constitute a deliberate suicide attack. It’s the actual AShMs that are the real threat, not so much the vessels.
Arnold Evans: Never bring a knife to a gunfight.
And never retain a lawyer to create a marketing campaign.
A quote from the President that the Washington Post reported which is not in the Leverett’s article and which severely changes the tone of the report:
Quote:
Yet as Mr. Obama acknowledged, Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons, and “changing their calculations is very difficult. . . . It may be that their ideological commitment to nuclear weapons is such that they are not making a cost-benefit analysis,” the president said. That, he added, is why the administration continues to say that “all options” for stopping an Iranian bomb are on the table.
End Quote
WHAT “ideological commitment to nuclear weapons”????
Iran has explicitly and repeatedly denied at the HIGHEST LEVELS – the Supreme Leader – that it wants nuclear weapons, calling them “un-Islamic”.
And yet Obama says Iran is “ideologically comitted to nuclear weapons”?
WTF?
If this isn’t an example of Obama’s complete and utter cluelessness about Iran – or more probably, Obama’s deliberate and deceitful LYING about Iran – I don’t know what is.
So where we are left with Eric is that he now openly embraces the idea that Iran does not have the right to the nuclear flexibility Japan has – that he so vehemently denied holding until maybe two days ago. He embraces it because he worries that an Iranian leader might be able to say, as Japan’s leaders truthfully say, that their country could make weapons if it chose.
I find Eric’s position itself uninteresting. Dishonest, indefensible but uninteresting.
Interesting, maybe a little, is his trying to wield the threat of a US attack on Iran to bully Iran into accommodating his “worries”. Kind of like John Bolton is the bad cop. He’s the good cop. But if Iran doesn’t submit to his suggestions, he won’t be able to hold John Bolton back.
What are his suggestions? One specific one: implement the AP. 100 other countries implement the AP, so John Bolton will convince the US to bomb Iran if Iran doesn’t also. Japan implements the AP. Japan truthfully says it can make a weapon. Somehow, the AP is going to help prevent Iran from reaching the same situation. The whole point, and the only possible point, the only possible way the AP could assuage Eric’s “worries” is if the AP is applied to Iran differently than it is applied to Japan.
100 other countries voluntarily accepted the AP. Hopefully the other ones did not do so under duress, with Eric’s threats that he’ll unleash John Bolton if they didn’t. Hopefully most of the others were not pressured by the US to accept the AP so that the US could use the additional obligations to further its program prevent them from attaining capabilities that are allowable, by any legal or moral standard, by both the AP and the agreements Iran has ratified.
Iran should take that risk. Says Eric, who favors the AP being abused to Iran’s disadvantage. Or else John Bolton is going to bomb Iran. By now Iran’s leaders should be shivering, and reaching out to the one American who wants the same thing the leadership of the United States wants, Iran not to have capabilities permissible under the NPT, but he claims for benign reasons.
Iran does not need you to rescue them, Eric. Now that you admit that, despite the lack of any legal or moral argument, you want Iran’s nuclear program to be structurally less capable than Iran’s. Iran should not trust you in any role you try to take as its protector.
If Iran wants to avoid the attack Iraq received, it must demonstrate to US professional military decision makers and strategists that it can harm the US enough that an attack would not be worth it. Iran is doing a good job of that so far. Hopefully Iran will continue as it is.
Interesting article, although I wouldn’t call it a “dissection”.
Iran’s ‘special’ naval threat dissected
www dot atimes dot com/atimes/Middle_East/LH06Ak02.html
Quote:
In many ways, the 2008 introduction of 74 domestically built missile boats (based on the North Korean Peykaap ISP-16 model), effectively used in war exercises, indicates Iran is turning toward reliance on asymmetrical tactics. These missile boats can be the deadliest form of naval warfare against US forces, particularly if used in unconventional operations such as suicide attacks.
End Quote
From Global Security:
IPS-16 Peykaap Class Coastal Patrol Craft
IPS-16 Modified Peykaap II Class Missile Boat
The IPS-16 is a monohull torpedo boat with a displacement of less than 15 tons. Its sole armament are 2 324mm torpedo tubes, stowed flush when not firing. This gives the boat a potentially low radar signature. The IPS-16 Peykaap class boats have a top speed of 52 knots.
Claimed as an indigenous design by the Iranian Maritime Industries Group (a division of the state run Defense Industries Organization), these boats are reportedly of North Korean origin, delivered in 2002. They may have been assembled or partially assembled in Iran. The MIG now offers the Peykaap class for sale itself, showing that it does have a production capability.
Between 2007 and 2008 a number of Peykaap torpedo boats were fitted with two launchers for the Iranian Kowsar anti-ship missile, an Iranian copy of the Chinese TL-10 missile. These boats have been referred to as IPS-16 Modified and Peykaap II.
Brill: “I’ve suggested that view might become less widely held among at least “thinking” Americans if Iran were to start observing the Additional Protocols,”
Repeated once again, like a mantra, without any evidence to support and the history of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to refute it.
“The inescapable reality is that we don’t know that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. We only believe that.”
We don’t know the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” (look it up!) doesn’t exist, either, IN THE ABSTRACT. In the real world, we do.
The belief in an Iranian nuclear weapons program is a “religious” belief, created by specific propaganda for a specific agenda. It is not held by anyone knowledgeable about the subject, including the US government intelligence agencies, and probably by even Israel’s intelligence agencies. It is a lie – nothing more or less – created by those two governments for their own purposes.
Brill just keeps reciting the same old crap over and over again, no matter how many times he’s been refuted by Arnold, myself and others here. This argument has been done to death by now. But Brill thinks he can get the last word by reciting it again and again in response to every Leverett post.
It’s hasbara tactics, nothing more. Compared to the usual Zionist troll efforts, it’s very subtle, one has to give Brill credit for that, but frankly it’s still a scam by someone who has admitted here that his motivation is his dislike for Iran. Well, I don’t like Iran either. But I’m not arguing to put the onus on Iran when the onus is on the liars in the US and Israel.
Ask yourself: Why doesn’t Brill spend any time railing against the liars in the US and Israel, like I do? Cui bono? Who profits by Brill’s approach? The US and Israel.
Q.E.D.
Kooshy: The problem with “flexibility and compromise” is that at least one side has to be willing to initiate – which Iran has – and the other side has to be willing to consider in good faith – which the US has not.
Without good faith on both sides, there can be no compromise, only bullying and possibly surrender on one side or the other.
People keep hoping Obama is going to turn out to “do the right thing”. He’s not.
He can’t afford to if he wants to be re-elected. It doesn’t matter if most of the US public would support his recognition of Iran’s right to enrichment – and most of them probably wouldn’t. First, they would be susceptible to the Republican and neocon accusation that Obama is “weak on Muslim terror” and also no friend to Israel (which is the Israeli public already believes, see the latest poll.) Worse, the Israel Lobby and the military-industrial complex lobby, which is even more powerful, would roll out the big campaign dollars against him and any Democrat who stood with him. And not many Democrats would defend him, since most of them are on the AIPAC payroll.
Seriously, people really don’t understand – or want to understand – the depth of corruption in the US government and the US economy. This is the overriding controlling factor in every issue the country faces. It’s why the US has been heading downward for decades, and there is nothing even remotely on the horizon to stem this decline.
The Iran situation is just a symptom.
Alan,
“The point of this blog should not be the creation of some kind of blanket Iranian support program. If there is scope to criticise Iranian actions, they should be criticised too. The US should be vociferously criticised for all manner of dreadful things, but sometimes that just may not be the whole story.”
You posted this several days back, and I think it deserves to be highlighted.
If Iran’s critics make 100 arguments, 95 of which are unsound and 5 of which are sound, we don’t move the Iran ball forward by arguing that all 100 of those arguments are unsound. When a reader who hasn’t “drunk the Koolaid” recognizes the weakness of a commenter’s responses to the 5 sound arguments, that reader might wonder whether the same commenter’s responses to the 95 unsound arguments also have some weaknesses he simply hasn’t spotted yet.
We need not look far for examples. Anyone who’s read the several summaries of Obama’s August 4 press briefing (summarized or linked-to in the Leveretts’ preceding essay on RFI) must have noticed, as I’ve stressed, that Americans overwhelmingly believe that Iran is working on nuclear weapons, and may even have them already. Whether that view is correct matters less than how widely and strongly it is held by Americans. The John Boltons of this world shamelessly exploit the American public’s fear to press for war against Iran, just as they exploited Americans’ equally baseless fears of Iraqi WMDs in 2003.
I’ve suggested that view might become less widely held among at least “thinking” Americans if Iran were to start observing the Additional Protocols, just as nearly 100 other countries do – notwithstanding my acknowledgement that Iran “got nothing in return” when it did that earlier, and my concession that this “confidence-building measure” might not build enough confidence to withstand the incessant screeching from the bomb-Iran crowd. Nor would Iran’s observance of the AP enable it to prove the unprovable negative (i.e. that it has no nuclear weapons program).
Nonetheless, the Additional Protocols amount to a carefully structured reporting and inspection scheme that enables a country – if it so desires – to get substantially closer to proving that unprovable negative. I’m hardly alone in this belief, as this quotation from Deborah Johnson indicates (see also my earlier post):
“The IAEA and many governments negotiated an “Additional Protocol” [in the 1990s] to plug the loopholes in the 1970s safeguards system, which most people agree is inadequate for verifying that states are adhering to their obligations not to divert nuclear materials for weapons.”
Several writers on this website have offered good reasons why Iran nevertheless should refuse to expand its nuclear-program disclosures, and I don’t mean to diminish those sensible responses. But anyone who’s followed this debate over the past week or so will have noticed that two responses were made far more often than any others. Far fewer readers have noticed, I suspect, that it’s logically impossible for both responses to be true:
Response 1: “There’s no point in Iran disclosing more, since it’s never going to be able to prove a negative anyway.”
Response 2: “There’s no point in Iran disclosing more, since everyone already knows that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.”
If one is just a head-nodding reader of this website, these two responses may seem entirely consistent, and might be sufficient to persuade the reader that Iran’s compliance with the Additional Protocols would be a pointless and burdensome exercise. But if we hope to influence skeptical and intelligent readers, how many are likely to be persuaded when they see these two arguments in close proximity – often in the very same paragraph?
The inescapable reality is that we don’t know that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. We only believe that. I believe it as much as those who feel that skeptics should simply accept our belief and move on. But I don’t expect skeptics to accept our belief and move on. I know they’ll insist on more than that – as any self-respecting skeptic would.
We can and do point to the “absence of evidence,” but that only invites the trite but largely true response that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” I say “largely true” rather than “true” because that trite saying does overstate the point. If a country has answered numerous questions covering a broad range of subjects, each question carefully fashioned to help detect a nuclear weapons program if one exists, and the answers yield no basis for concluding that the country has a nuclear weapons program, that “absence of evidence” will be far more persuasive to the questioner than would be answers to a narrower set of questions – especially when “most people agree [that that narrower set of questions] is inadequate for verifying that states are adhering to their obligations not to divert nuclear materials for weapons.” Those comprehensive answers will be even more reassuring than someone’s absurd claim to “know” that the country has no nuclear weapons program.
I won’t explain again why I think Iran is mistaken to believe its commitment to the AP is a useful “bargaining chip,” but will repeat my conclusion that – whatever its value may be – that “chip” will be more useful to Iran once it has been played. Playing it will weaken the “What is Iran trying to hide?” argument that will continue to persuade most Americans for as long as Iran refuses to observe the Additional Protocols. In fact, playing the AP chip now – without demanding anything in return – is likely to count for even more than if it is grudgingly offered as part of some US/Iran deal. It will make Iran’s commitment appear considerably more sincere to the audience that matters most – the American public, whose support the US government will need to go to war.
Joe Klein of times who was one of the few invited participants in yesterday’s briefing reports that Obama indicated that they have been contacted by high level Iranians during past month. So the possibility is that yesterday’s surprise meeting by Obama himself to just a few iconic inelegance issue reporters was a signal that either the Iranians asked for or as Levretts think meant to be sent directly not trusting intermediaries for possible transitional errors.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/08/05/obama-on-iran/
Richard
I agree with your entire comment, however from an Iranian point of view they have to work with the American government they have not the American government they want. I happen to believe if the going gets tougher for both sides, there becomes more opportunity for flexibility and compromise especially on the original strategic disputed issues with less chance of spoiler’s effective insertion.
Kooshy: “The reason I brought this up is to invite the second informed group like Arnold, Richard, Eric, Alan and others that by now we all know every serial number on every spinning centrifuge in Iran, isn’t time to start discussing how the core of the problem between this two nations can be resolved, this new discussions may actually invite a broader audience to become informed of the main issues.”
I agree completely, since the nuclear issue is purely a red herring.
The problem in terms of this latest Obama meeting is that, as usual, he has made some “nice words”, while not offering anything concrete. Taking this as a signal that he still intends to “engage” Iran would be a huge mistake. Obama’s methodology, which most people don’t seem to identify yet, is to “talk the talk”, then ‘screw the walk”. He’s fundamentally a liar – when he isn’t just being incompetent.
As I’ve said before, the issue is not US – Iranian relations per se. Those could be repaired given some rationality on both sides. The problem is the US SYSTEM is under the control of those who aren’t rational and who do not want rapprochement with Iran or any other country they think they can start a war with.
In other words, until the military-industrial complex, the oil companies, the banks, etc. can be prevented from controlling the US Congress – and you can imagine just from that statement how nearly impossible that is going to be – nothing is going to change.
Without addressing that issue, any discussion of normalizing relations between the US and the Muslim world, let alone specifically Iran, is basically a non-starter.
Alan,
You wrote to James:
“The big points, the only points really, is the Iranian desire to have their enrichment program endorsed and the Western desire to limit it. Both of these can be achieved through an agreement where Iran gives up 20% enrichment.”
This quotation may leave out some important context, but I don’t think I have (and certainly not intentionally).
Do you mean to say that Iran’s agreement to give up 20% enrichment will be enough for the US to endorse Iran’s enrichment program? That strikes me as very optimistic, especially since such a deal would also need to include some Western promise to provide TRR fuel to Iran. If so, the deal would be essentially this:
Iran gives: (1) Iran stops enriching to 20%.
Iran gets: (1) TRR fuel supply (either a swap deal, or just a sale); and (2) an endorsement of its LEU (3-4%) enrichment rights.
Unless I’m missing something, this amounts to the following “cause and effect” sequence:
1. February 2010: no TRR-supply deal in place; no US acknowledgement of Iran’s enrichment rights; Iran starts enriching to 20%.
2. Fall 2010: US agrees to TRR-supply deal; US acknowledges Iran’s enrichment rights; Iran stops enriching to 20%.
I can’t imagine this deal would be well-received in the US, especially by US voters in the November election. Do you contemplate that Iran will toss more into the pot? Cooperation in Afghanistan, perhaps?
Alan,
Regarding the NPT Review, I did take a quick look at Rebecca Johnson’s blog, but not at the final entry. I noticed this, though, and wondered how the debate ended on the question of assistance to NPT states that have not signed the Additional Protocols:
“The IAEA and many governments negotiated an “Additional Protocol” to plug the loopholes in the 1970s safeguards system, which most people agree is inadequate for verifying that states are adhering to their obligations not to divert nuclear materials for weapons. While many want there to be agreement that nuclear materials and technologies should not be supplied to states that have not adopted the strengthened safeguards agreements, some – most notably Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Libya and Syria – argue against. They claim that the protocol is voluntary and that it is unreasonable to heap more controls on the programmes of non-nuclear-weapon states when there are no comparable verification requirements on the nuclear weapon states. This argument will run and run, but in the end it is expected that some form of compromise language will be found.”
Kooshy,
Thanks very much for your additional insights on the Taliban participation.
Eric
FYI
The reason that Iran was willing to participate in Afghanistan and not in the same way in Iraq is that in Afghanistan Taliban is the group that can be contained geographically except in only one direction (south), but in southern Iraq is the Shieh community that can be contained geographically by the Sunie Arabs again except in one direction (East). Therefore a direct participation of Iran with the US in Iraq would have increased pressure on the southern Shieh communities as well as Iran which is always hard for Iran to contain the broader consequence, this wasn’t the case in Afghanistan. Similar was correct for Turkey.
Fans of Taki will enjoy his comment today (at takimag.com): “America is a blundering giant, its foreign policy determined by neo-cons out to wage non-stop war. Israeli Fifth-Columnists are calling the tune.”
“But I still don’t understand how Obama can reconcile the Iranian’s antipathy for the Taliban with the US/Karzai proposal to include the Taliban in the power-sharing arrangement.”
I would say relentlessly there is no other way Taliban is a fact of life in that part of the world, thanks to US’s Zbig 70’s policy, to live with that fact, integration without a non overwhelming non regional prescience with a strong north may stabilize the current situation without having any better option. The other option is partition that India and Iran will not go for.
kooshy,
Let’s remember that Iran offered to help the US launch the attack on the Taliban, and did so; Iran also offered to help the US assess the threat posed by Iraq and to deal with it. Iran hoped to avoid US invasion and likely resultant civil war. The arrogant ignoramus in the White House spurned the Iranian offer and then denounced Iran as a member of the absurd “axis” of “evil”! What a moron was G W Bush. Incredible.
I’ve been reading an essay Patrick Clawson wrote in 1994.
It opens with: “Western policy towards the IRI has long been based on the assumption that Iran could be persuaded to change major aspects of its foreign policy, such as support for death threats against Salman Rushdie, its murder of Iranian oppositionists in the West, its cooperation with terrorists (Lebanon, Palestinians, and various North African countries), and its sponsorship of opposition the PLO accord.” [sic]
he continued, quoting a recent statement issued by G7:
” “the problem is with particular foreign policies, not the regime. …” ”
If only Iran could
” “participate constructively in international efforts for peace and stability, and cease actions contrary to those objections.” ”
One wonders:
if Iran had “participated constructively in international efforts for peace and stability,”
~would the Palestinians have a state;
~would Iraq have invaded Kuwait;
~would US have imposed sanctions on Iraq;
~would US have waged war on Iraq to redress the same sort of invasion (of Kuwait) that was sanctioned when Israel invaded and captured Jerusalem;
~would Israel still be occupying Lebanon;
~would Salman Rushdie’s sold as many copies as it did?
If Iran does begin to “participate constructively in international efforts for peace and stability,” what state will next assume the position of official international whipping boy?
Rehmat,
daniel Pipes is a neocon warmonger and an idiot.
FYI
“We are in the post-sanction phase and politically Iran has put herself in a situation that she cannot agree to actions that will, in effect, help NATO.”
Agree on the sanctions phase , however I am confident that Iran feels more secure with Americans in Afghanistan than the Taliban , that is the reason that Iranians agreed to cooperate on Afghanistan back in 01 to begin with. But since the Americans could not manage properly they are willing to help to contain the spread to neighboring countries including Iran, I do agree with you about Iran’s policy toward the Northern provinces. That policy has not changed since late 50’s according to a book called AfghanNameh and it shouldn’t.
fyi,
I agree the US and Iran could not make any agreement regarding Afghanistan; the US will have to leave and Iran will be left to cope with the mess caused by the US intervention. However, I still think Iran and the US should discuss Afghanistan, drug smuggling, etc., as a means of epening communication channels for other matters.
And how absurd, that there still are no direct NYC-Tehran flights. The failure of the US to reopen its embassy in Tehran is a hallmark of the childish foreign policy promoted by Hillary Clinton (to please the Israel lobby).
Kamran – Anything coming out of Brooking Institute or Saban Center – cannot be good news for the Muslim world because both of them represent the neocons and Israeli agenda. The Saban Center for the Middle east Policy is directed by Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Tel Aviv and co-founder of WINEP, a Jewish think tank of Likud. It’s named after its Jewish billionaire sponsor Haim Saban.
Maybe, Daniel Pipes, listed as “author” in Israel Hasbara Committee has more credible solution to counter Ben Obama’s declining popularity.
“He (Obama) needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a light-weight, bumbling idealogue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations. Such an opportunity does exist. Obama can give orders for the US military to destroy Iran’s nuclear-weapon capacity,” National Review, Feb.2, 2010.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/samson-option-and-islamic-republic/
Liz,
“Most Iranians don’t have any faith in Obama nor do they care if the United States accepts its enrichment activities or not.”
The Iranian people’s attitude about the US’ view on Iran’s enrichment rights strikes me as realistic. I don’t see much hope, at least near-term, that Iran can cut a deal with the US government that acknowledges Iran’s right to enrich uranium on its own soil – other than some severely quantity-restricted arrangement that Iran would soon need either to breach or to re-negotiate, which the US government would inevitably spin as yet another step in Iran’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons.
That being so, I see no practical choice for Iran but to just keep on enriching uranium, and in the meantime to do what little it can, if anything, to gain some support from other countries (China, Russia, second-tier powers) and the “thinking” portion of the American public – with the objectives of keeping US war-mongers at bay and reducing the chances that additional UNSC sanctions will be approved.
Iran may not accomplish either short-term objective, and doesn’t have a lot of tools with which to try. Obviously I have one in mind…
Kooshy,
“What difference does that make if by then the core of the outstanding issues have been resolved and Iran’s domestic enrichment is accepted in a formulation.”
None. If.
“I believe they mean a regional based security structure for Afghanistan (neighbors plus china India US Russia = NA + China and US) rather than the current NATO based structure.”
Thanks. That clarifies it a bit. But I still don’t understand how Obama can reconcile the Iranian’s antipathy for the Taliban with the US/Karzai proposal to include the Taliban in the power-sharing arrangement. Thoughts on that?
short and sweet summary: Obama needs help in Afghanistan.
Alan,
“Eric – if that is Iran’s desire regarding Afghanistan [i.e. not to have Taliban involved in Afghan government], it flies in the face of practically everything that is now considered to be the most fruitful way forward there. Oddly, it has been the US and Iran who were the most implacably opposed to the Taliban, so it is ironic that they should want to talk to each other only after their interests have diverged!”
There indeed is irony heaped upon irony here. I can just imagine the US negotiator’s opening remark to the Iranian negotiator:
“Remember those Taliban guys that we used to hate so much, and that you always hated just as much as we did even though you were always sneaking around supplying them with weapons to use against us? Well, it turns out we like those guys after all. In fact, we’d like to sign them up for some important jobs in the Afghan government. We hope that’s OK with you and that there won’t be any hard feelings – we were just kidding around when we accused you of supplying weapons to them.”
James Canning: “Who were the fools who advised Obama not to respond? Can we guess?”
Can we speculate whether that same person will insist that her daughter acknowledge wedding gifts within a fortnight?
kooshy:
Understood but now support will ever come from Iran for continued presence of NATO forces in Afganistan.
We are in the post-sanction phase and politically Iran has put herself in a situation that she cannot agree to actions that will, in effect, help NATO.
That is over and done with as I have suggested.
Iranians will support Karazai while maintaining contact with the other side.
If Taliban come back, Iran will try to retrench around Herat and Mazar Sharif; keeping the road to Tadjikistan open.
The War, anyway, has to come to an end – 30 years of it has destroyed what was once a peaceful and backward country.
FYI
I meant the American/ NATO military supply, that and the SA are where the ISI and Taliban founding is coming from
kooshy:
Supply route is already there for Afghanistan-specific goods.
It will help Karazai but the fact remains that there are 20 million people on the Pakistan side of Durand line that potentially could be helping Taliban.
And then there are 20 million on the Afghanistan side.
You have to think of the possibility – however undesirable – of a fragmented Afghanistan – a situation like Somalia.
You really need a Saudi, Iran, Pakistan deal on that poor unfortunate country.
fyi
“In fact, no such structure by foreigners is any longer viable.
Best that can be hoped is rapid exist of all NATO forces and last ditch attempts to keep Karazai’s government in place.
And only Pakistan could – in principle – save Karazai government with any degree of certainity.
And she won’t.”
Not unless the supply route can be diverted to go thorough Iran, Pakistan’s ISI and military grip will be reduced
kooshy:
In fact, no such structure by foreigners is any longer viable.
Best that can be hoped is rapid exist of all NATO forces and last ditch attempts to keep Karazai’s government in place.
And only Pakistan could – in principle – save Karazai government with any degree of certainity.
And she won’t.
Kamran
Thank you for your very informative post
Eric
“Given this stated reason for the US administration’s present confidence and consequent calmness, how calm might it be once Iran has overcome these technical problems (for example, when its newer centrifuges start operating) and is churning out, say, a bomb’s worth of LEU every week or so?”
What the difference does that make if by then the core of the outstanding issues have been resolved and Iran’s domestic enrichment is accepted in a formulation.
“In light of the Leveretts’ more clear presentation of what the Iranians will be most concerned about with respect to Afghanistan, does anyone have any idea what Obama might have meant in the sentence quoted by Mr. Ignatius? I must confess that I don’t.”
I believe they mean a regional based security structure for Afghanistan (neighbors plus china India US Russia = NA + China and US) rather than the current NATO based structure.
Look, there could be no deal on Afghanistan.
US & Iran cannot even agree on direct NYC-Tehran flights.
Take a look at this:
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0805_arab_opinion_poll_telhami.aspx
Who is winning the hearts and minds of the Arab world?
Eric – if that is Iran’s desire regarding Afghanistan, it flies in the face of practically everything that is now considered to be the most fruitful way forward there. Oddly, it has been the US and Iran who were the most implacably opposed to the Taliban, so it is ironic that they should want to talk to each other only after their interests have diverged!
On the other hand, if there is a genuine push now for a regional Afghanistan solution, including most importantly India and Pakistan, Iran has to be in on it too, and perhaps can take confidence from the participation of the other parties.
The facts on ground proves that the Zionist regime’s concern with a nuclear Iran is more likely political rather than military. Tel aviv, which has 240-400 of her own nuclear bombs plus protection from the nuclear powers, such as, Washington, Paris and London – why would Tehran dare to attack Israel unless attacked first by Israel or its poodles in the US? The most logical reason could be that the Zionist regime is afraid that if Iran posesses a nuclear bomb, it would loose its political influence over the US. Tehran with a nuclear warhead could withdraw from the NPT and use its move as a bargaining chip by offering to reduce or eliminate its nuclear arsenal in return for a similar move by Israel – both monitored by IAEA….
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/samson-option-and-islamic-republic/
The Leveretts wrote this about Obama’s outreach to Iran on Afghanistan:
“Now that the Obama Administration is acquiescing to Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s efforts to negotiate power-sharing arrangements with the Taliban — as a way of facilitating the draw-down of U.S. forces — Tehran no longer credits Washington with either good intentions or strategic competence in Afghanistan. … Obama will have to take affirmative steps to convince Iranian policymakers that he does not intend to turn over Afghanistan to the strongly anti-Iranian Taliban and its chief external backers, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia — two of Iran’s most important regional rivals”
David Ignatius said this about that:
“[Obama] urged that, as part of Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s push for ‘reintegration’ with the Taliban, Iran should be included in regional talks about stability. ‘Iran should be a part of that and could be a constructive partner,’ he said.”
In light of the Leveretts’ more clear presentation of what the Iranians will be most concerned about with respect to Afghanistan, does anyone have any idea what Obama might have meant in the sentence quoted by Mr. Ignatius? I must confess that I don’t.
Another (unrelated) observation by David Ignatius:
“U.S. officials also appear increasingly confident that because of Iran’s [technical] setbacks and aggressive monitoring by U.S. intelligence, it will be hard for Tehran over the next year or two to achieve either a “breakout,” where it announces it has a bomb, or a “sneak out,” where it reaches that goal surreptitiously.”
Given this stated reason for the US administration’s present confidence and consequent calmness, how calm might it be once Iran has overcome these technical problems (for example, when its newer centrifuges start operating) and is churning out, say, a bomb’s worth of LEU every week or so?
It is tempting to characterise this as a mirror image to Ahmadinejad’s effort the other day. Perhaps Obama is, like I suspect Ahmadinejad was, preparing his domestic turf for September negotiations. Maybe each side genuinely is plotting a face saving way out of the impasse, which may also explain the increasingly shrill antics of the Israelis.
Most Iranians don’t have any faith in Obama nor do they care if the United States accepts its enrichment activities or not. In Iran Obama is seen as weak and incapable of showing real leadership to bring about a positive change in US foreign policy.
Meanwhile, the US continues to get hammered in Afghanistan. There is little doubt that once the US withdraws, under current circumstances, Afghanistan will become a center for anti-US forced much stronger than the al-Qaeda of 2001.
kooshy,
As you know, I think any effort to “check” Iranian economic growth is foolish and counter-productive. And most reasonably well-informed Americans I talk to, favor normal relations with Iran.
Any input on the machinations of neocons and other warmongers to subvert the government and economy of Iran, is welcome.
Colm O’Toole,
Israel needs a very large flashing red light, 24/7. After Saakashvili launched his idiotic attack on the Russian soldiers in South Ossetia, Condoleezza Rice claimed that she had given him a “red light” regarding any such attack. Whether she in fact thought she had done this adequately, or was just covering her backside, seems unclear.
fyi
“Cyrus:
You are right.
Keeping Iranian power checked is the name of the game.”
By just reading comments made by various commentator on this site one would conclude that majority of informed Iranian commentators like Cyrus, Massud, Pirouz 1&2 and others easily point that the core of dispute between Iran and US, is not Iran’s nuclear capabilities this group understands and suggest to resolve the nuclear issue they must resolve the disputes on the core issues first which for Iran would be an alignment or containment. I also believe owners of this site mostly share the same view as their Iranian readers.
On the other hand, majority of non Iranian commentators would mostly stick narrowly to the nuclear issue and more recently to the TRR fuel exchange, this approach in actuality is upholding the western government view which in fact is distributed through the western media sources for western consumers( we can work our way up by resolving the side issues first), reading David Ignatius yesterday’s report of Obama’s calling in the journalist it seems that the realities on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq are becoming more realized to the US strategist and that can help to resolve the real core of the problem. The reason I brought this up is to invite the second informed group like Arnold, Richard, Eric, Alan and others that by now we all know every serial number on every spinning centrifuge in Iran, isn’t time to start discussing how the core of the problem between this two nations can be resolved, this new discussions may actually invite a broader audience to become informed of the main issues.
Regarding possible US-Iran cooperation on Afghanistan, Iran quite rightly believes there is no military solution and that the presence of US troops makes the insurgency worse, not better.
Imran Khan had a good piece in The Times of London recently, outlining how the US military intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 led directly to Islamic insurgency in Pakistan.
More sloppy or deceptive US news reporting, from the AP today (on Yahoo.com site): “AP Exclusive” Iran defiant in nuclear documents”. All too typical of the rubbish that passes for reporting, when it comes to Iran. But this is what helps convince the typical grossly ignorant American that Iran is determined to build nukes or already has them.
This meeting looks to me like it also served the purpose of giving the “red light” to Israel regarding a military attack. As the Veterans Intelligence Professionals for Sanity wrote in a letter to the President any mixed signals from the US means the Israelis would likely strike betting that the US would be forced to back them up.
fyi,
I personally also much prefer good manners and correct protocol, so the gratuitous offence caused by Obama’s blunder is only too obvious to me. I’m not sure I would characterise it as vanity.
Obama has dozens upon dozens of people imploring him to be sensitive to Israeli concerns and feelings, etc etc etc etc, and very few advising him to be equally cognisant of Iranian sensibilities.
The speaker of the Iranian parliament, Ali Larijani, has called for closer Saudi-Iranian relations, and he noted correctly (in my view) that this would benefit other Muslim countries. I would argue that better Saudi-Iranian relations would also benefit Israel.
James Canning:
There are Americans who, rightly or wrongly, think very highly of the status of the President of the United States.
They also consider Mr. Ahmadinejad to be a buffoon, unworthy of a reply.
They are mistaken on both accounts but they are who they are.
“It was also rude.” – Yes, specially to such a vain and protocol-oriented people like the Iranians.
No “substantive plan” for improving US-Iran relations can be developed, it would seem, without some “concrete” progress in an incremental for, The porposed exchange of LEU for the 20% U needed for the TRR is one open avenue, unless the Israel lobby wrecks it. Another is for the discussions regarding Afghanistan, the Taliban, drug smuggling. These could take place in Iran, or Vienna, or Kabul, or other places – - and should be pushed forward.
I very much agree it was a blunder on Obama’s part not to respond to Ahmadinejad’s letter of congratulations on winning the election in 2008. It was also rude. Who were the fools who advised Obama not to respond? Can we guess?