(Photo Credit: Defense Department Photostream)
CENTCOM Commander General David Petraeus stated on Meet the Press yesterday that the United States is now pursuing the “pressure track” as a means to halt Iran’s nuclear program.
It appears that the administration is banking on one of two things happening. Either increased sanctions will make life so difficult for the Islamic Republic that it will capitulate and somehow give up or alter its nuclear program in a way that is beneficial to Western interests, or the Islamic Republic will collapse and a new government will emerge that is more eager to deal with the United States.
Last Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden and National Security Advisor General Jim Jones made comments directly linking sanctions to regime change in Tehran – suggesting that they think the second scenario above is a likely outcome. But what if the regime, which has persisted for 30 years despite immense international pressure and war, survives?
Even if more sanctions compelled Iran agreed to concessions on the nuclear issue, the United States has other very important interests with regard to Iran. The only way to prevent Iran from continuing to play “spoiler” in other areas such as peace with Israel and stabilizing Iraq is to fundamentally reorient and improve U.S.-Iranian relations.
The question we should be asking is, “What if the Islamic Republic manages to survive and does not agree to major concessions with regard to its nuclear program?” Then “the pressure track” will have only served to exacerbate the mutual hostility between Washington and Tehran and we will be even further from the kind of strategic opening that is so important for American interests.
– Ben Katcher
rfjk – it has also been widely reported in the Middle East that a new initiative is on the cards, the gist of it being that it will set out the end points of where negotiations will finish. An interesting point in that consideration is a Palestinian idea to declare a state unilaterally and have the Security Council vote on it.
Obviously, the Palestinian idea is useless without US support. However, it could form part of a build up of US leverage over Israel. I think this is the process Obama is going through at the moment, and why a deal with Iran is so important to him. If the US starts doing business with the Iranians, the open flank the Israelis are exploiting now, and could escalate at will, is closed.
The other aspect is Hamas/Fatah reconciliation, which has been largely impeded by the US and Egypt. There are signs that this was getting close, and I suspect the Israeli killing of the Hamas man in Dubai was designed to upset it again.
Alan
Obama in a sense has just received a boot up his ass to get his act together.
Baker Accuses Obama of “Caving In” on Israel-Palestine
http://www.lobelog.com/baker-accuses-obama-of-caving-in-on-israel-palestine/
Baker, the architect of the Bush family dynasty was the sole reason the shrub became president in 2000. Then in 04 I read an article that reported Baker was “scathing” in his comments regarding Bush and his administration in private conversations among the wealthy and powerful.
James Baker the III is a patrician among the elite in the US ‘establishment’ of power. He represents our version of what Europeans would readily recognize as an aristocrat, though in America are versions acquire this status by merit, not birth or inheritance. He is not someone you toy or to put it more plainly, @#$% over.
Apparently Bush Jr. pissed the man off, and though many people here would find this unfathomable, I believe Baker lost his faith in Bush, recognized a mistake and diligently worked behind the scenes to diminish Bush and his presidency.
Back in April of 09 Baker gave one of his rare interviews lauding Obama. Actually, this shouldn’t be too surprising since many of Obama’s policies were adopted from Baker’s play book. I also wouldn’t be surprised that Baker played some role behind the scenes in getting Obama elected too.
Obama is getting reamed and taken over the coals by progressives in the demo party and foreign policy establishment. He has just received a public critique from the dean of the ‘realist’ school. Lately there has been a lot of travel activity of cabinet principles to the Middle East and may be the push behind a proposed Quartet meeting in Moscow next month.
Whatever or however, the fact remains the president received some advise from a personality foolhardy to ignore. What many Americans don’t know and all foreigners can be forgiven for not knowing, is the US presidency is not the only powerful office or personality in the republican order and scheme of US governance. And I am not talking about the Republican party.
rfjk – no, nor are they existential threats to Israel. However, US policy toward Israel/Palestine/Lebanon cannot be viewed in isolation to policy toward Iran, not then and not now. The US was, and still is, fundamental to the lockdown and slaughter of Gazans, which enrages the entire Muslim world, and a fair chunk of the non-Muslim world too.
For Condaleeza Rice to say at the time of Israel’s attack on Lebanon that we were “witnessing the birth pangs of a new Middle East” can only infer regional plans, and it was long established that Israel/US felt they needed to take out Hizballah to close the flank before an attack on Iran. In my opinion, the thinking is wrong anyway, because Hizballah are far too smart to launch that kind of assault on Israel in the event of Iran being attacked, but wrong thinking was hardly a shock when it came to Bush and his bunch of numpties.
I totally agree Obama doesn’t share the same fantasies, but there are still serious blindspots in his regional policies. I still think there is a masterplan at work here, but it needs to reveal itself soon, because it is simply despicable to continue to participate in what is being done to Gaza.
Excuse me, I meant to direct my last post to Alan.
Dan
Hezbollah and HAMAS are existential threats to Israel, not the US. And however Obama’s M/E policies are described, the one thing such are not are the parked out in orbit, loser fantasies neocons are famous for. No one in Washington D.C. is pursuing such rubbish, though time to time as the need may arise a principle may give lip service to.
ephorate n. (Historical Terms) (in ancient Greece) one of a board of senior magistrates in any of several Dorian states, esp the five Spartan ephors, who were elected by vote of all full citizens and who wielded effective power
[from Greek ephoros, from ephoran to supervise, from epi- + horan to look]
ephor n. One of a body of five elected magistrates exercising a supervisory power over the kings of Sparta.
Good or bad depends upon whether a person believes this or any future POTUS needs supervision regarding foreign policy and the national security interests of the US. The NSC is targeted for transformation because Congress has no oversight or approval of nominations to this committee. That raises the hairs on the backs of some peoples heads who see the persona’s of Jones, Mullen, Petraues and McChrystal as the prototypical precursors to Sulla, Marius, Pompey, Crassus and finally Caesar of the later republic.
rfjk – fascinating stuff. We still got Lebanon/Gaza 2006 and the “birth pangs of a new Middle East” though. Perhaps their influence had waned, but I’m not sure the neocons had entirely given up on Iran until late 2006 early 2007, judging by the stonewalling of numerous very attractive Iranian nuclear offers throughout 2005 and 2006.
What’s an Ephorate? Is it good or bad?
Actually, it was the “war in heaven” waged by ‘realists’ and ‘progressives’ in the foreign policy making ‘establishment’ who stopped the Bush/Cheney/neocon cabal. The Leverett’s being a member of that ‘establishment’ played a part in it. Ironically, Bush thought he had a new lease on power after the 04 election, but quickly was disabused the following month in January 05 when he was forced into a confab and general dressing down by all the previous Secretary of States in the White House. Colin Powell got his revenge and that was the first public manifestation of the fat lady singing the funerary dirge for the Bush regime.
It was the success of that opposition that FORCED the nomination of Robert Gates as SecDef in 2006, who in turn TOLD Bush to formerly nominate Mike Mullen as Chairman of the JCS in 2007. By then pay back time was in full swing as the worm turned for the neocons, but more importantly for good or bad a new assertion and awareness of power on the part of generals and the long suffering and much abused career civil servants of the ‘national security state’ in the executive branch had dawned. Though I had an inkling of trouble when CentCom Commander Gen John P. Abizaid declared he would not be the “fall guy” for Bush/Cheney/neocon meddling in military affairs in the latter part of 2003, it was abundantly clear that a new class of power was in town by 2007.
Eisenhower’s famous speech was a warning regarding the corruption and greed of the Congressional/Corporate elites who were in the brainless process of creating a monster, which may have been fully accomplished by the incompetent, loser, Bush/Cheney/neocon regime. Congressional/Military/Industrial/Complex probably no longer adequately describes what now exists within the executive branch of the federal government, if it ever did. NSA advisor Jones and others are rapidly transforming the NSC, an ad hoc affair under the authority of the President into a permanent institution within the architecture of the chief executive. One general referred to it as an Ephorate within the presidency.
Interesting times.
rfjk – of course it was the generals that were crucial in stopping Bush having a pop at Iran when he supposedly had the chance.
The other side of the equation would be that the hardware providers were fat enough after Iraq so didn’t need another war so soon. But hey, it’s been 7 years now. We gotta get killing again.
John – part of the prospectus for invading Iraq was to pump their oil, and bank the money to pay for it all. Which is precisely what they did at the start. Who was that accountant in La Jolla that was doing the books for it all in his spare bedroom? Didn’t $12bn or so disappear in the first 6 months of the CPA? Of course the maths all went wrong when Iraq couldn’t be recreated in the right image.
Its not US defense dollars that causes wars, its wrong headed policies pursued by an increasingly corrupted, civilian, political elite over the past 40 or 50 years in Congress and the White House. The only force preventing war with Iran is the US ‘national security state.’ So long as the standoff between the US and Iran remains one of rhetoric and dialog, leaders like NSA Jones, Gates the generals and others can give a fig. But let the dialog turn to substantive war mongering among the worthless political classes and just watch how fast that jingoism is crushed by the generals.
In the absence of national conscription it costs a lot of dough to entice that 5 or 10 percent of a population who would be willing to fight for that other 90%, whose only claim to fame is sloping it up at the trough, knuckle dragging and shooting their mouths off.
Alan is quite right about “wages” being the number one item in the defense budget. Consider that an E-1’s base salary is 17,364 dollars a year, but when pay allowances for housing, subsistence, dependents, clothing, dislocation, overseas, travel & per diem and combat pay are factored in, that lowly E-1 is making approximately 30% or more than his civilian equivalent.
And we aren’t even factoring in the “Enlistment Bonus Program.” Depending on MOS and need a troop can earn as high as 25,000 dead presidents for re-enlisting. Then of course there is the “Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) Program” that can award a service re-enlistee with up to “15 times the pay of the original enlistment wage depending on the applicant’s MOS, existing years of service, and years projected in the reenlistment.” And if that’s not enough there is the “Re-enlistment and Overseas Extension Bonuses” to sweeten the pie for those serving in overseas duty stations.
But even this doesn’t properly represent military compensation, because no recruit remains a lowly E-1 during a 3 year enlistment, especially if he/she decides making the military a career choice. Consequently, US military retention and enlistment have never been better. And the US economy will be limping along for a long time making a national defense career an enticing option for those so attuned.
Defense spending will never go down, its going to continue going up. And the main driver will be these increasing pay scales and benefits to compensate the strong for defending the weak. And the weak will pay.
During the early Cold War period defense spending was more than half of the federal budget. Take a look at Eisenhower’s budgets, JFK’s budgets. It’s social spending that’s really exploded since the time of LBJ and Nixon. Splurging on defense occurred in the early Reagan years, and to some extent under Bush II, but it’s domestic spending (together with interest payments on the national debt) that’s risen big time since the mid-Sixties. Mind you, I’m not defending current levels of defense spending. I’ve already stated my view on that.
It’s quite true that if you have a big military, you’re more likely to use it. But unfortunately we don’t live in a world where a pre-World War II defense posture is a practical proposition.
My only point is that the odds of future wars increase with the size of the military budget. The way to decrease the likelihood of future wars is to constrain by making future wars depend on finding the means to pay for them. This would introduce a powerful constraint on military adventurism. This may already be happening. With Social Security having to pay out more of its annual income in benefits and with increasing Chinese reticence about dollar debt, the availability of slush funds to fund wars of choice is diminishing. Ultimately budget realities may save Iran, although the powers that be seem intent on cutting entitlement spending, which would make more money available to the military.
The defense share for 2010 is 671 billion out of a total budget of some 2.184 trillion buckaroo’s. Some have calculated that a lot of additional defense spending is buried in other departments and agencies of the federal government, raising overall defense spending to the tune of a trillion bucks or half the national budget. Whatever the true amount may be, the fact is the evolving US ‘national security state’ is hardly stressed financially by diplomatic bluffing.
Don’t ask me to defend the defense budget. I’m for withdrawing completely from the Middle East. I see no need to be in Korea, and I see no real need to keep troops in Europe. I’d like to withdraw from East Asia as well, but like it or not we need to contain China (though for preference I’d like to see a “forward strategy,” in cooperation with Iran, India, Russia and others to foment unrest in Tibet and Sinkiang (sorry, I can’t remember the new spelling) as part of a wide-ranging program aimed at breaking up the Chinese empire — the only real foreign threat we face.
Alan’s point is quite valid; a big bite of the defense budget goes to personnel — pay, pensions, medical benefits, etc. There’s nothing to be done about that, unless one is prepared to reintroduce conscription.
It’s not the size of the budget that bothers me so much (though I agree it can and should be cut some), but how our forces are used. Here perhaps we largely agree (though I daresay many of you have no stomach for confronting China).
John – it’s definitely a big issue, that’s undeniable. Even a mere $200bn is still 1.5% of the economy. I’m just not sure that it makes war with Iran a dead cert. They are obviously a hugely powerful lobby, but that debate can yet be won with some deft footwork. If the US still needs fiscal stimulus, the money can be spent elsewhere. Otherwise it’s a nailed-on target for reducing the deficit.
Alan is right. Massive military budgets are not just for military contractors. Wars are a sure source of career opportunity for military brass. For grunts and bureaucrats they represent career security and health care benefits.
Oh, and did I mention the need for the brass to try out all the new toys they have been showered with? If not Iran, then who?
Iran grounds plane with Rigi holding US-issued passport
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=119318§ionid=351020101
This for sure is another setback for the western intelligence in the area
John – how much of that $700bn goes on wages? Say there are 10m employees in defence, including all support/admin staff at an average cost of $50,000. That would be $500bn of it. I have no idea what the exact figures are by the way, but surely a very large chunk of the total would be taken up by non-belligerent expense?
If it’s a bluff, the problems is what to do with $700 Billion of military expenditures. How do you justify it? And how do you keep everyone who supplies war material happy?
You can only bluff so long before you have to clear out the inventory of surplus bullets and outdated equipment and buy new stuff. That’s what happens when the military and its contractors become ascendant.
So if Iran will not be attacked, which poor, defenseless country will be?
Jon Harrison said:
“…So, in my opinion the threat of U.S. military action is a bluff…”
Of course its a bluff, but your wasting your breath with these birds who have drunk the koolaid by the gallon and snorted the pixie dust by the ton.
Pressuring Iran cannot be accomplished in a diplomatic stalemate where threats of invasion, bombing or sanctions are at best nothing more than tactical ruses in place of action. Iran will deal when the realization the US will NEVER leave Iraq or Afghanistan explodes in the skulls of Iran’s mullahs.
In that regard the Russians can’t help them. And the Chinese profit and thereby need US hegemony in the region to secure their interests in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan, just as much as they need the regions hydro carbons.
Iran is only one puddle in a region of many puddles of which the US is deeply engaged, and will remain so as long as hydrocarbons remain the vital, strategic natural resource of the age.
Blockading Iran is an act of war and would be challenged in international forums, which is the last thing the U.S. wants after the Iraq experience.
In fact, the idea of a U.S. war with Iran is nonsense. We simply are not prepared for yet another war in the Middle East. Although current polling shows the U.S. public supporting military action to prevent Iran from getting the bomb, the education process of what military action would entail will, I believe, eventually send those poll numbers south.
A blockade won’t happen and a ground war is out of the question. That leaves an air campaign. My personal feeling is that the U.S., or at least the Obama administration, is not going to bomb Iran. Nobody wants to deal with the sequelae of an air campaign — increased terrorism in the region and perhaps here in the U.S., increased Iranian interference in Iraq and Afghanistan, international condemnation of the inevitable civilian casualties bombing would cause, etc., etc. If Iran is bombed, it will be by Israeli warplanes rather than American.
So, in my opinion the threat of U.S. military action is a bluff. And I think the Iranians believe this as well. The wild card is Israel. Of course, an Israeli attack brings with it most of the adverse consequences we would suffer if we ourselves attacked. Let’s hope something gets worked out on the nukes issue.
Hmm, let’s see 31 years of sanctions and “pressure” have forced Iran to build domestic industrial production of consumer and industrial products, to develop high-tech industries like electronics, nanotech, genetics, materials science, to develop its own military industry, to launch a space program (satellites and the rockets to send them into space), to establish a mass university system (in addition to the elite universities)and most importantly try to move from a dependent mentality towards US and Europe to an indepndent mentality, lacking in some of its neighboring countries.
Conclusion: 1. The more “pressure”, the better for Iran 2. A little pressure and sanctions would maybe get some of Iran’s neighbors to move towards domestic development.
Islamic Republic ‘not only’ has survived “31 years of sanctions and 8 years of a devastating war” but also has improved tremendously in field of science and technology and medicine.
Neither sanctions nor threats will stop Iranian government from exercising its right under international law to develop its nuclear technology for electricity and medicine.
Obama is miscalculating the Iranian psyche.
Islamic Republic will never capitulate or alter its nuclear program in a way that is beneficial to Western interests.
Iranians are proud people and fanatical about their independence and sovereignty.
They have lost more than One million martyred to the US-backed Iraq war; each martyr probably has about 20 closest relatives such as; their parents, brothers, sisters, relations and friend who religiously and fanatically support the Islamic Republic’s ideology. These are the core supporters of the regime, which total more than at least 20 million people and vehemently oppose any US interference in Iranian internal affairs.
These people are already aware that sanctions by USA are designed to turn more Iranian people against their government; therefore, no matter what hardship they suffer under the sanction, they will never allow another US Imperialist puppet government to govern Iran ever again.
Obama must put Americans interest before Israelis’ and totally abandoned Israel’s policies of sanctions, regime change or Military attack and start engaging with Iran.
In my opinion, even if USA and Israel eventually manage to destabilize the Iranian regime, they will only create another hell like Iraq.
There will be a civil war in Iran the like of which we have never seen before.
There will be bombings, fighting in street of Tehran and other cities in Iran for many years to come.
Iran will be divided into smaller countries such as Baluchistan, lurrestan, Azarbiyajan, Kurdistan etc.
The only looser will be Iran and Iranian people.
Those young Iranians who are blindly supporting USA to change their regime must learn lessons from Iraq that change of regime by USA would not result in prosperity, freedom and democracy for Iran.
Interesting point of view from Pravda , Ru
Why Iran? Why Does the US Use Two Sets of Weights and Measures?
http://newsfromrussia.com/hotspots/conflicts/22-02-2010/112315-why_iran-0
This is not even a “what if” scenario.
The AIPAC inspired policies towards Iran will fail.
By the way, why are we not talking about Israel’s illegal nuclear bombs?
If the West was really serious about dealing with Iran, they would allow a third party like Turkey to take possession of the enriched uranium inside Iran. Free trade zones exist all over the world. Why not set up one in Iran?
As for the “Over 50 Turkish commanders held over coup plot,” this is the neocons’ worst nightmare. A military subject to local civilian control is not what warms neocons’ cockles. They would much prefer that their cronies be in charge everywhere.
This a new interesting development that needs also to be discussed in the content of the regions developments and specially the Iran case since Turkey wants to host the
The enriched Iranian uranium while in transit
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100222/ap_on_re_eu/eu_turkey_coup_plot
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Iranian-President-Mahmoud-Ahmadinejad/photo//100222/481/f9767de9257b42eeaaf21f0bfb812004//s:/ap/20100222/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear;_ylt=AoNtbVfZtgH.U5uCpBHj5eUUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTE5dHFhdG43BHBvcwMxBHNlYwN5bl9yX3RvcF9waG90bwRzbGsDZmlsZS1pbnRoaXN0
This picture from the above link released on April of 2008 says a lot it shows the end of the Iranian Nuclear issue from the Iranians point of view.It looks like western intelligence and their policy makers can’t even believe their own eyes, Mr. Ross and co. will need to explain why Iran was not under pressure when this picture was released and If it was why this pressures tactic has not worked specially since we all know “pressure” was imposed on Iran since at least mid 90’s, and what makes Commander General David Petraeus believe it will work now.
Yes, the thinking seems that SOS Clinton will prepare the ground for war by the next administration, much like Bill Clinton paved the way for Bush to attack Iraq.
Or maybe, if they’re lucky Iran will collapse. It’s highly unlikely that the current regime will capitulate on the nuclear issue, because that would make it dependent on the West for its nuclear fuel. Capitulation of the nuclear issue would mean total capitulation, which is Washington’s goal: total military hegemony in the Gulf.
b: I hadn’t seen that. That is a scary document, especially since these guys are in the White House.
“What If the “Pressure Track” Does Not Work?”
According to Dennis Ross’ Bipartisan Policy Institute plans the next step then is a blockade and outright war on Iran.