On Saturday, I posted “Iran – Stalling For Time“:
“Chief Iranian Nuclear Affairs Negotiator Hosein Musavian: The Negotiations with Europe Bought Us Time to Complete the Esfahan UCF Project and the Work on the Centrifuges in Natanz.” MEMRI
In this interview the chief Iranian Negotiator in the matter of their nuclear program explains that the protracted process of dealing with the IAEA and the European powers was worthwhile because it enabled Iran to procrastinate in dealing with the West long enough to complete major installation essential to the nuclear program.
Musavian makes it clear that the Iranian government’s negotiating strategy was motivated entirely by the tactical necessities required by the determination of the Iranian government to drive the program forward as rapidly as possible.
This interview should largely answer the uncertainty on the part of some people as to whether or not the Iranians could be lured into giving up their nuclear ambitions. – Pat Lang
__________________________________________
Next, from my friend, retired Marine Lt. Col. Dale Davis, who is director of international programs and teaches Arabic at Virginia Military Institute, his assessment — from a military standpoint — of the U.S. miliary’s options.
Dale — with whom I have appeared on PBS’s Newshour — posted “US Military Options to the Iranian Proliferation” at my blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis:
Despite the awesome power of the US armed forces, President Bush will find his military options for dealing with Iran tightly constrained by both political and military realities. What will be absolutely impossible to achieve is regime change Iraq – style via invasion and occupation. Even if the bulk of US ground forces were not already committed in Iraq and Afghanistan such an effort would be extremely challenging and without the support of popular forces certain to be violently rejected by the Iranian people.
CONTINUED BELOW:
A limited air campaign would be militarily simple to execute. Iranian air defenses would be easily destroyed. Targets would be designated and struck with precision and force but to what end? The Iranians have had decades to prepare for this most likely of scenarios and have no doubt dispersed, duplicated, and hardened their critical facilities. No air campaign in recent history has ever achieved anything near what the proponents of airpower have claimed. Unless the US is willing to carry out sustained strikes and re-strikes for months and maybe even years there is likely to be little serious damage done to Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
And for the Jacobins in the audience forget the use of airpower as a tool for regime change. Iran is not Kosovo. Even a sustained air campaign would be unlikely to dislodge the Mullahs from power. Any speculation that a popular revolt can be triggered on the “Wings of Eagles” would be seriously mis-informed. The second bombs fall on Isphahan every Iranian will rally to the call of “Allahu Akbar Khomeni Rahbar.” Persian nationalism will trump the forces of democracy every time.
Sea-power might be the most effective of the limited tools available. A naval blockade of oil exports could be easily undertaken. Destoying the Iranian tanker fleet and liberating the three islands of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs along with their associated oil and gas fields would place tremendous economic pressure on the regime.
Regardless of which option is selected, Iran will retaliate by unleashing its tremendous influence amongst its Shi’a proxies in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. Doesn’t any remember the Spring 04 Shi’a uprisings in Najaf and Kerbala? Imagine it on a much more intense and wide scale.
Dale R. Davis
I guess one can only say that America is caught with their hard on and no place to go…or caught between a rock and a hard place.
Just like the Bush adm way of doing things.
The whole world is nuts except for you and me and sometimes I wonder about you…as the old saying goes.
What now is there to be done. Am I wrong when Iran is only going after the bonb cuz Isreal is threatening to them? Is there more to thsi than meets the eye?
but I have read that Iranian pride is involved here, infinitely complicated by the U.S. policies of GWB.
The Iranians have also pointed out that it was U.S. policy during the reign of the Shah of Iran (lest it appear that I only blame Bush) to develop nuclear energy, even though they had oil reserves at the time as well. Iran is no Iraq, though the U.S. population often sells the Iraqi people short when it comes to engineering and technological ability (thank Hussein and sanctions for keeping them back). Iran is very well-developed technologically, and has a very young, well-educated populace. Pride and nationalism will push them away from any restrictions on doing whatever they want, compounded by the U.S. no longer being the beacon of moral high ground we once were. Any attempts to attack them militarily will be responded to quickly and forcefully — and we have a lot of troops sitting there. Any movements by Iran against Israel will be met quickly and forcefully, leading to who knows what.
The U.S. policies have made this bed, from propping up the Shah to supporting Hussein in gassing the Iranians. Now we all get to sleep in it and frankly the sheets are less than 400-count and the bedbugs bite.
Add point
4. Providing nuclear technology to a country, (India) who is nuclear armed but who has not signed on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. (This technology transfer is in direct violation of the NPT).
See the excellent diary on this subject, and on all the other violations of the NPT by the Bush regime at European Tribune by Sirocco here.
I agree with you entirely, Brenda.
If I were a Saudi, a Syrian, an Iranian, an Iraqi, etc., etc., I’d be very worried about Israel’s nuclear capability. (It requires a putting one’s self in THEIR shoes because — I guess — the prevailing opinion in the U.S. is, well, Israel is as rational and sensible as we are, and they’d never do anything irresponsible with a bomb whereas the Iranians — oh well — they’re a bunch of extremist nutjobs.
(THAT said, I can see why people might be worried about Iran beause of the fundamentalist influences in that government .. although they do seem, sometimes, to be very pragmatic and political. But, imagine if our U.S. fundies were at the helm — Pat Robertson, James Dobson et al. were running things in our country — the world would be scared sh-tless about what they might do with the U.S.’s nuclear weapons.)
BIG PICTURE: We all need to be very, very worried about nuclear proliferation. John Kerry said it is the world’s number one problem. We ALL need to get rid of the horrible weapons of mass destruction. ALL countries.
Has this administration been played by the Iranians, or what?
And for the Jacobins in the audience forget the use of airpower as a tool for regime change
I read this utterly sensible analysis and think, “yes, any fool can see an air attack would be a big mistake.” And then my blood chills, because the neocons don’t seem to be fools so much as they are charlatans. They lie, they cheat, they disguise real intentions. Justification is merely the peanut under their shells: Look here, it’s the bomb! No, now it’s under this one, it’s mideast stability! Oops, it’s this one, democracy! Sorry, Suckers! Ha, ha, pay the man!
We can all agree on the folly of an air campaign, but we agreed on the folly of attacking Iraq, too, and they still did it because there was something in it for them. It’s as if logic doesn’t matter anymore and repeating it amounts to banging our heads against the wall. The only question that seems to matter is the most dangerous one of all: what’s in it for them? If their greed for power, etc., takes over then we are cleared for take off.
They are pathological liars, always concealing their true agenda, masquerading as patriots who put America’s interests first.
But these lunatics are so infatuated with their own agenda, their own ideas and the “rightness” of their cause, that they are only capable of loyalty to themselves. The idea that what they want might not be in America’s best interests never occurs to them, and even if it did, they’d ignore it anyway.
The architects of the Iraq war prefer us to see that the rise of Iran’s influence in Iraq represents a surprise problem who’s magnitude was underestimated by the Bush regime. I believe this is total bullshit. I think Cheney and his cabal of warmonger psychopaths counted on Iran to make big moves vis a vis Iraq, because they wanted to draw Iran into the situation in order to more easily develop a pretext for attacking them.
Remember, these nutcases, (Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Ledeen), have wanted to destroy Iran since the end of the Carter presidency. They’re so close now to being able to do it, (in their own delusional minds anyway), that they will not abandon the effort under any circumstances short of not being able to get the funding appropriated for it. Even the fact that the Israeli nutcase Netyanyahu is probably going to replace Sharon as PM plays into their hands because Netanyahu will quickly undo any and all progress made towards any sort of equitable settlement between Israelis and Palestinians, thereby providing the impetus for more violence to erupt there, adding to the overall rage sweeping the region.
This discussion reminded me of a C-SPAN2 In-Depth interview with Dr. Helen Caldicott, so I searched the booktv.org site and was pleased to see that this fascinating interview will be replayed this Saturday, and you can watch it anytime.
One of the poignant parts of the interview that I recall was her comment that she felt like her work had been a waste because nuclear proliferation is much worse than when she began. Sad … but she won’t be the first or last prominent activist who won’t live to see her work realized.
(to take the situation to its logical absurdity) the only military option to respond to Iranian nuclear enrichment is nuclear (or should we say, nucular) preemption?
It is absurd, but given the president we have, it is not as ridiculous as one would like it to be.
By the way, one thing we should keep in mind is that there is no casus belli: the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty explicitly allows nations to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear power. And though one may be skeptical of Iran’s intentions, they are not as yet in violation of the NPT.
Soj has posted a very interesting diary on the contradictions of Western nuclear policy, that places this issue in a larger context.
And send the oil price to $200/bl… Not holding my breath for that either.
Thanks for a pointed analysis; I fully agree.
A blockade would force China (and India) to follow through on an implied contingency plan to protect the energy supplies for their own growth.
It would also destabilize Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the rest of New Balkistan, as Iranian trade and intrigue would saturate the old streambeds of the Silk Road.
“C’mon, just do it.” Vladimir loves a vacuum. “Remember the Good Old Days? The Red Army and The Greatest Generation sharing occupation of Iran — just for the duration, of course.”
If only the neo-cons responded to logic.
Pat Buchanan, with whom I agree on nothing, except Mideast policy, wrote a good column on the ludicrousness of this proposed venture. He makes the point that this is a totally artificial crisis. The Iranians are within their rights to generate nuclear power, just not weapons, and they are about 10 years away from nuclear capability, even if they flout non-proliferation regulations. They pose no immediate threat, so military action is unwarranted, and, at present, illegal. We would be doing this to protect Israel and to prevent Iran from having the deterrent capability of being a nuclear power. And, it will be disastrous.
These people are insane. How many times can they make the same mistake expecting a different result? Do they really think the Iranians will bow to our supreme might if we wage a spectacular air campaign? Do they really think that the people will just rise up against the Mullahs? They will fight us. Not only do we not have the troops for an expanded ground war, we don’t have the hardware! As my husband, who works in joint operations for the Marine Corps says, “Everything is broken!”
Unless their goal is to bankrupt the US treasury, cripple our military, and unleash chaos in the Mideast, the neo-cons are failures, many times over.
Certainly a major part of the neocon agenda here in the US is to loot the economy and place all the wealth in the hands of their friends and big time supporters.
The reason for this is because their ideology has no real use for “democracy”. They are addicted to authoritarianism as the preferred system of governance. The “masses” are not “smart enough” to understand the intricacies of such things as foreign policy, legal systems, or economics.
Remember, the neocons started out as “lefties”, some Trotskyites, some with a strong appreciation for Leninist philosophy. and “totalitarianism” was a core principle of those belief systems.
So, looting the economy gives them more power over the masses, rather than strengthening the country by empowering the masses themselves.
I imagine the Iranians looked at Iraq, then looked at North Korea and asked themselves, “Who got the better end of this bargain?”
George W Bush’s bellicose gesturing threatening Iranian Armageddon is very strange. It is like the Capitol Hill Blue’s psychotic speculations above are true.
There are no troops available to invade. That leaves a blockade or aerial bombardment. A blockade will skyrocket already high petroleum prices even without any Iranian retaliation. North Korea and Iranian nuclear sites are in harden bunkers.
The Pentagon has asked Congress to fund development of nuclear bunker buster bombs as an effective replacement of current penetrating bombs that don’t work. They failed to mention that the nuclear bombs can’t penetrate too far into the rock. They are no different than surface nuclear blasts. Nuclear Bunker Busters: What’s the Damage? Conventional bombs will not work to take out the nuclear sites. Atomic bunker busters will kill millions.
The only tools available to threaten Iran and North Korea won’t work and will blow back with untold economic and political damage to the USA.
IIRC the Iranians have a plethora of hardened and well hidden launch points for silkworm missiles. Further, I do beleive it was just those munitions which led to a rout of the “Blue” (we) team by the “Red” (they) team in a 2002 simulation.
Furthermore, having been to Iran- I can say that the terrain is very nasty and well suited to defense.
Although I do think there are available proxies for an air supported neutralization of Iran, pretty much everything but the Central Plateau and Mazanderan/Gilan could be split off with air power and limited ground support, again IMHO.
Exactly right. Either a blockade or an airstrike would invite retaliation against oil export facilities in the western gulf. All of the oil from the Persian Gulf flows through literally a few dozen facilities, and they are very vulnerable to air attack (from Silkworms) or sabotage.
I am not a pacifist, but I cannot see any military solution to this problem.