Richard at Hyscience discusses Seymour Hersh's big scoop that Iran is nothing to worry about. I heard that guy speak once. It was a bizarre experience. The Pentagon press I had dinner with that night were talking about his weirdness, and one of them observed, the thing about Hersh is, sometimes he's spot on, and he gets big prizes. Or he's totally wrong, and you never hear about it again.
Anyway, big media have been beating themselves up for the last three years, because they believed and reported that Saddam had active WMD programs, something all world's major intelligence agencies believed and reported. Near as we can tell, just about everyone in Iraq, possibly up to Saddam himself, thought Saddam had active programs. Big media wish now that they had reported something else. Never mind that it has not been definitively proven that Saddam didn't have active programs, although if in fact he didn't, it is clear he intended to have them as soon as the sanctions were lifted.
But you have to ask yourself, is Seymour Hersh fighting the last war?
That may go for the CIA, as well. If in fact the CIA believes Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, did the CIA arrive at this conclusion in the same manner in which it determined that Saddam's agents were not seeking to buy yellowcake in Niger? And as we learned on Sept. 11, 2001, that a dearth of intelligence doesn't necessarily mean nothing is happening.
It doesn't matter. Here's the deal with Saddam. It holds for the Iranians, too. It's a gun-toting American Wild West cowboy thing. You know how us Americans are. We're crazy like that. When someone who is irrational, with a bad history, in a position to cause trouble, starts putting out that he is arming up and intends to destroy you or make you kneel down before him, you can start making assumptions. You can also start acting on them.
An erroneous assumption has been made by the Iranians and by many in the west that because our ground forces are hyper-extended in Iraq, and Iranian nuke facilities are buried deep, there is nothing the United States can do about an Iranian nuclear program. This is not true. There is no need to invade or occupy Iran. We do not want to do that. We would prefer to see the Iranian people's desire for free elections honored, but that doesn't appear likely any time soon.
What we have to do to influence Iran is explain that if Iran does not begin to cooperate with the international community, we will substantially isolate Iran and destroy its means of supporting terrorism and pursuing nuclear weapons. This can be done incrementally, to give the Iranians an opportunity to reconsider their policy. Our Navy, not hyper-extended in Iraq, can blockade their ports. Our Air Force, also not hyper-extended in Iraq, can begin reducing their terrorist-support infrastructure. Things like oil fields, refineries and roads leading toward Syria and suspected nuclear sites. This can continue ... pretty much as long as the Iranians want it too.
If in fact we find an actual nuclear weapon, or one explodes anywhere in the world, the Iranians -- and the North Koreans as well -- need to know that we will assume it was theirs, and act accordingly. This may encourage them to turn their intelligence agencies and terrorist networks to better use.
If we are going to sit down and talk to the Iranians as the Iraq Study Group is expected to recommend, then this is the message that needs to be signalled loud
and clear.
It's a policy I call Assured Destruction, because unlike the Cold War, there doesn't have to be anything mutual about it.
At any point along this path, if it turns out that they were just kidding, and it was all a big mistake, that will be too bad. For them.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
finally, a suggestion I agree with: don't worry about the nukes buried deep in concrete.. go after Iran's oil infrastructure, you know the stuff that finances the nuclear weaponry. Put them back into the business of making persian carpets, which is a much calmer mode of life (calm submissive as Cesar Millan would say) and make the rest of us happier campers.
Yep, this would be a good way to go.
But I don't see the whole 'building bridges' crowd that just grabbed a hold of the reins going for it at all, and Ahmanawannadingdong is wily enough to do nothing overly provocative for the next 2 years.
I think you're right - because when I say "never again", I mean it, and when someone threatens us, I believe them.
For me the question isn't about Iran, per se, but Syria. Consider that Syria still supports Hezbollah and is the main conduit for Iranian supplies to Hezbollah. Also, Syria is a source point for insurgent funding and supplies in Iraq and Anbar province will only be marginally quiet at best if nothing is done about Syria. The way forward to stability in Iraq and the Middle East lies straight through Damascus, Syria. Mind you, Hezbollah being backed by both Iran and Syria makes them fully accountable to Hezbollah's actions, which have put the rest of the Arab Middle East on notice.
Now I am worried about Iran and its ability to have gotten warhead designs and plans via the AQ Khan network as it did nuclear separation devices from Mitutoyo, via that network.
But to this I add a bit of information gleaned by Ray Robison: that the actual Saddamist nuclear scientists that went *missing* after OIF have shown up in... Syria. And, by that account, a number of Syrian, Iranian and ex-Russian Republic nuclear scientists are also there. So, supposing that they are not have a grand 'nuclear tea time' and that facilities are being built for them other than as a 'recreation area', what exactly, could this mean?
Well, if you don't want to *bury* your scientists and keeping them out in the open is too much of an inviting target in Iran, then where, exactly, would you put them? Someplace nearby, friendly, out of the way and NOT under the microscope so that they can take the near complete Saddam designs, reconcile them with the AQ Khan designs and start the finishing touches on an actual, real warhead design group. And if one is very careful in smuggling nuclear material to Syria via commercial flights, or via 'diplomatic pouches' that are lead-lined, then you can also make that group a design engineering to 'proof of concept' group.
The added bonus is that Syria has pre-existing ties to North Korea as seen through the supernote trade and its purchase of NoDong missiles from North Korea in the 1990's. Now here you come up with one of those interesting convergences in which an 'out of sight, out of mind' player serves as a focal point for knowledge and capability. Little, woebegone Syria might just have all the necessary cards to play in this to use enriched nuclear material from Iran and/or North Korea, design its own warhead, possibly with some North Korean help added in, and then use that design on previously purchased missiles. Thus the reason *why* Lebanon is so important for Syria an Iran: it serves as a basing point for cruise missiles to attack neutral shipping and defend against outright attack from the sea while serving as a first line defense for Syria.
Of course all of this may fit together *some othe way*. But do we dare do anything other than 'worst case scenario analysis' when it comes to nuclear, or if the recent FMSO documents are correct on Saddam's ambitions, thermonuclear weapons?
Which displeases us more: Iran openly working towards a nuclear device, or Iran *distracting us* while their ally puts together a nuclear device in secret and springs that as a 'surprise' on the world, thus allowing Iran breathing space to finish its program?
I have to agree that if we're going to pressure Iran, we should also put the screws to Syria, and if possible, drive a wedge between the two countries.
I
I totally agree. Here is the text of the letter that I sent to president@whitehouse.gov last Tuesday:
Dear Mr. President,
I agree it is long past time that we hold talks with Iran and Syria. To save time, we should have then both in the room at the same time.
Tell them that if they don’t stop meddling in Iraq, Lebanon—and don’t abandon their nuclear program—that we are going to (at long last) consider ourselves at war with them, with all due consequences for them.
Indeed, speak to them: tell them that their military installations will be utterly destroyed. In Syria’s case we can outsource to Israel. In Iran’s case the entire B2 fleet can be kept quite busy for several months.
Iran has been at war with us since 1979—and has paid no price. Zero. Syria has been an enabler of Middle East turmoil and has paid no price. Zero.
Time to talk, alright.
Tell them that they have a week to recall their agents from Iraq and invite in the IAEA to every one of their nuclear facilities. Tell them that we can live with a oil-based recession longer than they can live without their instruments of terror to control their people.
No U.S. troops on the ground. Just lots of cruise missiles and JDAMs. Nothing speaks so eloquently as those boys. What have you got to lose at this point?
Good to see you have learned some valuable lessons from Iraq, Jules.
150,00 dead Iraqis and a regional disaster later, and you are advocating bombing the hell out of another middle east country based on questionable intelligence and the weird logic of pre-emptive defense. Have you learned nothing? Have you no shame?
Jules,
You're right. Kruthammer was wrong when he editorialized that the window of opportunity would close on a policy of "Assured Destruction" when Iran joined NoKo. In other words, he felt without a NoKo rogue's monolpoly, the US couldn't hold one or both governments responsible for an attack without a return address.
I, like you, think such proliferation just makes the "Assured Destruction" policy more imperative as the consequence faced by all rogue states that flaunt the NPT. Otherwise, there is an incentive to proliferate.
Moreover, unlike NoKo, the Iranian population will have some understanding of the risk they must accept for the nuclear ambitions of their leaders.
Remember, Hersh is the lurid anti-American fantasist who says our current military is the worst bunch of war criminals ever.
Discussing his opinion is a waste of pixels.
tom gara,
Based on the historical batting average of the Hussein regime, more people would have died had we NOT invaded Iraq.
Democracy and freedom may be a "disaster" to you, Castro, and Kim Jong IL, but tens of millions of Iraqis seem to like having a free press, forming trade unions and women's rights groups, being allowed to buy what they want, and voting.
There may be some deterrent effect in a pointed reminder to Ahmedinawhackjob that we have actual tested ICBMs and thermonuclear warheads that can be set to detonate 100 miles or so over uninhabited area, but in line of sight of several cities and military installations. No blast effects and minimal fallout. But how much Iranian infrastructure is EMF hardened?
Attacking Iran's infrastructure sounds like a good idea to me. Occupation is not an option, and there are no sanctions we can impose that will have any effect on the mullahs. They will keep at it until attacked, and even beyond that, if they can.
Perhaps destroying infrastructure is what we should have done in Iraq, instead of going out of our way to build their country for them.
The U.S. and various allies spent 10 years blockading Iraq. Didn't work out, mostly because other nations (France, Russia) found it in their interest to trade rather than maintain sanctions. You'll see the same crap with Iran.
Likewise, destroying infrastructure won't cause the regime to collapse. Just look at the North Koreans: the infrastructure there is horrible, and yet Kim maintains his power.
Until the Iranian people are ready to take it upon themselves to kick out the mullahs, this problem will not be solved.
As a reply to Tom, who asks if we've learned nothing...
You apparently do not understand the purpose of national defense. Knowing that we are fortunate enough and rich enough that no power on earth can simply overrun us by conventional attack, you are content to act as if the non-conventional threats being mounted by Iran and Syria can just be conveniently ignored. After all, we might create a "disaster" in their countries if we "bomb the hell" out of them. The fact that they have explicitly and repeatedly threatened to murder us by the millions doesn't concern you; instead, you characterize our concerns as due to "questionable intelligence."
The lesson that we should learn from Iraq is that we are not very good at nation-building. From Langeweische's (sp?) articles in the Atlantic and Woodward's book (among other sources) it appears that the ground-floor military is building a lot of experience mounting counter-insurgency efforts. However, political pressures and the military brass are simply not tuned in to the real needs of this process. Because of these shortcomings we are apparently not succeeding but, instead, are experiencing the exact 'blowback' that was predicted by many liberal commentators several years ago.
This probably makes you feel vindicated in saying that Iraq is a "regional disaster." The problem with your analysis is that you are missing the point. You are essentially saying that, since our attempts to bring democratic reform to Iraq as a strategy for defending against Islamic extremism have failed, we should just submit to defeat in the war as a whole...despite our overwhelming military superiority.
The actual point of the post is that our defense may well require a different - and much less humanitarian - approach to the problem. I have no shame in admitting that I am not willing to see New York disappear under a mushroom cloud so that you can feel morally superior. I am perfectly willing to engage in "Assured Destruction" of Iran's nuclear program - with all the tragedy that that would entail - based solely on Ahmedinejad's threats against us as a people.
Have you no shame for calling so casually for a disregard for the lives and prospects of Americans? Are you so blind that you don't see that the "mess" in Iraq is due primarily to our own (perhaps misguided) humanitarian impulses and that we could certainly have achieved our aims by *truly* bombing the hell out of the country? Or have you forgotten what real war looks like?
Yes, yes. The first nation in the Middle East to have a nuclear weapon should be bombed back into disfunction.
Oops.
How about: The first nation in the Middle East to have a nuclear weapon, and threaten to use it aggressively, should be bombed back into dysfunction?
If you're trying to imply that Israel is somehow a threat to us... I'd like to hear your reasoning.
Post a Comment