The Latest in Our Ongoing War With Iran

The revelation of an Iranian plot to kill a Saudi diplomat on American soil was not particularly surprising. The U.S. has been engaged in a low-level war with Iran for years, although the war appears to be pretty one-sided, with Iran actively working to kill American soldiers, and doing everything possible to create anti-American proxies in Iraq -- among other things. Iran has been allowed to get away with this, despite its military weakness compared to the United States. Now it is true that there have been covert actions against Iran too, such as the killing and kidnapping of nuclear scientists, and cyberattacks aimed at its nuclear program. The level of U.S. involvement is unclear, but it is likely that U.S. allies such as Israel or Saudi Arabia might be behind them. Overall though, the U.S. has tolerated open hostility and acts of war from a third-rate power.

Some experts are surprised and skeptical about this plot's links to the Iranian government, because it seems reckless and somewhat amateurish. They could be right, and it might have been some sort of rogue operation. But I doubt it. I find it unsurprising that Iran might engage in what seems like a reckless escalation of the war, because it has little reason to fear any sort of significant response. It is well aware that the U.S. is preoccupied with various major issues, and that it is led by an extremely weak president, who has been nothing but spineless toward all enemies other than Al Qaeda and its affiliates. You have only to look at Obama's weak response to this situation. The U.S. government openly accuses Iran of trying to assassinate an allied diplomat on American soil, but then does nothing other than run to the UN and try to get more useless sanctions. Why should the Iranian rulers fear that sort of toothless action?

This situation demonstrates yet again that the Obama administration is incompetent when it comes to foreign policy. You don't accuse a hostile country of an act of war unless you are prepared to respond with force. A strong accusation combined with a weak response does nothing other than increase hostility while making you appear weak. One thing Obama is very good at is making the U.S. look weak.

Islamic Values Apparently Don't Allow Water Fights

A group of people held a big water pistol fight last week on a particularly hot day.

Hundreds of men, children and women in all-enveloping black chadors turned up. They gleefully soaked each other for two or three hours. Pictures showed families enjoying themselves. Finally the park managers turned the taps off and everyone went home. Nobody was hurt. Nobody complained.

But this didn't go over too well with various Iranian guardians of "Islamic values." Mohamad Taghi Rahbar, the chair of Iran's parliamentary legal and judiciary committee accused organizers and participants of "endeavouring to dilute our Islamic values," and warned that organizers would be dealt with "severely." One local official went so far as to describe the activities as "immoral." And people wonder why so many have negative views of Islam. The example of an entire country ruled by Islamic clergy where Islam is used to justify repression couldn't have anything to do with it. It must just be "Islamophobia."

The Latest on Iran & Nuclear Weapons

Over at In From the Cold, there's a look at the latest on Iran's nuclear weapon program. The news isn't good.

Using data released last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles and the operations of its nuclear program, U.S. weapons expert Gregory Jones calculates it could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb in just eight weeks. ... According to Mr. Jones, there is nothing the U.S. or Israel can do to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons--short of a military occupation. Since the odds of that happening are virtually nil, Jones believes an Iranian bomb is a foregone conclusion.

As the post notes, if these recent assessments are correct, it looks like the cyber attacks and various covert actions against Iran have been less successful than originally thought. According to a study by the RAND Corporation, attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capability can already be considered a failure. Here's what RAND recommends.

The goal of U.S. foreign policy should now shift to dissuade Iran from taking the next step of making a weapon, the study says, adding if that fails, Washington should have a back-up strategy to deter a nuclear-armed Iran.

If we couldn't talk them into giving up their nuclear aspirations, it is equally unlikely that we can somehow persuade then not to take the final step. Rather than continuing with our official policy of wishful thinking, we should recognize reality and get ready to implement a deterrent strategy. In the meantime we should step up covert action aimed at sabotaging all elements of the Iranian nuclear program.

Stay Away From Iran

Yet another American has been arrested in an Iranian border area and charged with spying. This time it's a 55 year-old woman who supposedly crossed the border from Armenia without a visa. As an American I hope that she and other Americans detained on what are almost certainly trumped-up charges of espionage are released unharmed. But on a personal level I have very little sympathy for stupid people.

Iran is not just a hostile rogue state, it is an open enemy of the United States. We are currently fighting a low-level war with that country in which Iranian proxies, and Iranian personnel themselves attempt to kill American troops. There is almost certainly a covert war going on beyond the things the public knows of. Iran has made all sorts of wild threats against both the U.S. and Israel, and the latter two countries have publicly speculated about a possible preemptive strike to destroy Iran's nuclear program. In this climate, with the current regime in charge in Tehran, any ordinary American who either goes to Iran, or travels to a border area of a country adjacent to it is a complete fool. Iran is actively looking for American hostages to seize. Americans with an ounce of basic common sense should avoid Iran like the plague.

Iran Paying For Dead Americans

Just another reminder that Iran is our enemy, for those stupid enough to believe that if we just talked nicely to them, all our differences could be resolved. A Sunday Times investigation finds that Iranian companies located in Kabul are paying $1000 bounties for each dead U.S. soldier, and $6000 per vehicle destroyed. So what should we do about?

I'm on record opposing war with Iran at this time, and I stand by that position. I don't think it's in our strategic interests right now. That doesn't mean war wouldn't be justified. We have more than enough reason to declare war. It's just not a good idea -- but neither is letting Iran get away with waging a covert war against the U.S., and directly assisting the Taliban. For starters, bad things should begin happening to the people in those Iranian Kabul firms. Some of them should disappear without a trace -- hopefully into secret prisons where they can be interrogated for more information. Others should suffer ugly fatal accidents. Their business interests should be attacked by armed gangs -- I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to find some that might fit the bill in Afghanistan. 

Inside Iran itself, Iranians connected with the regime should start dying. Apparently the U.S. is already conducting some kidnappings of scientists, and sabotage of nuclear facilities. This sort of activity should be stepped up, and should be extended to key elements of regime support, such as the Revolutionary Guards. Iran has made it clear by both its words and its actions that it is fighting a covert war against the U.S. We should respond in kind, only with a greater and more effective effort. U.S. resources should be employed in a campaign of kidnapping, assassination, sabotage, and the arming & funding of dissident elements within Iran. We need to make it clear to the Iranian leadership that force will be met with greater force, and that they will pay the far greater price in a covert war. Superior force is the only language the mullahs and their flunkies like Ahmadinejad understand.

Iran is weak, and even regionally it is no match for the United States. It is able to do things such as fund contract killings of U.S. soldiers only because of our distraction with more important matters, and our reluctance to utilize our far superior military power. It's time to start raising the penalty for Iran's actions. 

Iran Set to Open a New Target

No, not a store. According to Russia, Iran is set to start-up its first nuclear power plant next week.

Rosatom spokesman Sergei Novikov said Friday that uranium fuel shipped by Russia will be loaded into the Bushehr reactor on Aug. 21, beginning the startup process. ...“From that moment the Bushehr plant will be officially considered a nuclear-energy installation,”

The plant is painted with a gigantic bullseye that can be seen from the air. Not really, but it might as well have one. I'm not in favor of strike on Iran, but if there is one, I expect this facility to become a smoking pile of radioactive rubble.

It would be interesting if Iran's brand-new first nuclear plant were to suffer a mysterious, catastrophic accident, perhaps a massive internal explosion, or some sort of cooling system failure that led to a meltdown. Aside from destroying the plant, such an accident would probably kill scientists, engineers and technicians important to Iran's nuclear program. It might even be blamed on shoddy Russian engineering, poor workmanship or the use of cut-rate materials in construction, damaging the close relationship between Russia & Iran on nuclear projects -- especially if the cause of the accident is difficult to determine.

Total War?

Over at The Victorious Opposition there is an interesting post presenting four hypothetical scenarios and asking whether or not readers would support "total war" in response. Total war is defined as,

a war in which our vital interests are at stake, we mobilize our full strength, the enemy commands a modern state, and the war has more of a global or hemispheric rather than a simply regional nature.

I wouldn't call that total war myself, just a major war. I think total war has other implications. But given that definition, here are the scenarios:

1. China attempting to overrun Taiwan?
2. Iran detonating a nuclear weapon in Israel?
3. North Korea sinking an American vessel (something small like a frigate) with a submarine?
4. Russia invading any ex-Soviet republic NATO member nation in the same way it did to Georgia?

In my opinion, only two of those scenarios would likely produce a truly major war of the type the writer is describing: numbers 1 and 4. Here are my answers.

1. It depends on the overall circumstances. In my opinion, China's overall power is grossly exaggerated by many vis a vis the United States. I do not believe China is capable of pulling off the type of massive amphibious assault that would be necessary to overrun Taiwan, with even minimal, largely deniable U.S. involvement. On the other hand, China is certainly capable of unleashing a devastating missile barrage in an attempt to pound Taiwan into submission. Should the U.S. go to war in a major way to save Taiwan? It's a difficult call, and I can't say for certain without more details of the overall picture. Taiwan is a a long-standing ally of the U.S. In my view, loyalty to allies who have been loyal to us is extremely important. We should certainly not sit idly by while China hammers Taiwan. But risking nuclear war for Taiwan is another matter.

2. If Iran detonates a nuclear weapon in Israel, I fully expect Iran to be devastated by an Israeli nuclear response. I don't see this scenario as a major war situation for the U.S. Compared to the United States, even an Iran armed with a some nuclear weapons is extremely weak. Even using conventional weapons, if the gloves were off, the U.S. could cripple Iran, while suffering only regional damage. Should Iran manage to pull off an amazing nuclear first strike that utterly destroyed Israel and its entire nuclear force, I would definitely support a massive retaliatory strike of either a conventional or nuclear variety. A third-rate power such as Iran could not be permitted to destroy a major U.S. ally and get away with it.

3. Again, I don't see this as a major war scenario of the type described -- unless China backed North Korea -- it's a major war, but a regional one. If North Korea dared openly sink a U.S. vessel, I would definitely support a declaration of war. I would also support a first strike with tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to ensure that North Korean nuclear weapons are not used against us. If they covertly sank a U.S. vessel, as with the South Korean one, I would opt for lesser but still violent measures, such as hunting down every North Korean submarine, and possibly bombing submarine bases.

4. I think this and number 3 are probably the most likely of the four scenarios, and this one is the most avoidable. I was not and am not a fan of expanding NATO to include small, weak former Soviet republics. Some allies are not worth having. It would be a disaster if one of these countries, places outside our vital interests, dragged us into a major war with Russia. Should such a scenario develop, I would try to get unified NATO support in an attempt to intimidate the Russians into backing down. If the rest of NATO goes wobbly, I would probably support some attempt to find a way for the U.S. to also weasel out of its treaty obligations.

Some Remarkably Obtuse Foreign Policy Analysis by Stephen Walt

Although I strongly disagree with Stephen Walt's hostility toward Israel, and his conspiracy theories regarding the so-called "Jewish Lobby," I usually at least respect his foreign policy analyses covering subjects not involving Israel. His latest article is called, "Obama is zero for four and Republicans are sitting pretty." Among other things, he points out four areas where Obama's foreign policy has failed. If Obama is 0 for 4, Walt's analysis is 1 for 4 at best. Let's look at issue number 1, Iraq.

it's now clear that the much-vaunted "surge" was a strategic failure, and Iraq could easily spin back out of control once U.S. forces are gone.

No, that isn't clear at all. It is instead a poorly supported opinion. Obviously things could spin out of control at some point; there's no way to secure the situation for all time. That's an impossible standard for success. But the actual success of the surge is the only reason we are even able to consider withdrawing from Iraq on decent terms. Unless you think a permanent, major-force U.S. presence and war effort in Iraq is a good idea -- which Walt does not-- calling the surge a strategic failure is flat-out idiotic. And there's more nonsense about Iraq.

Even in the best case, Iraq can only be judged a defeat for the United States

Another ridiculous assertion. It is obviously far too early to render a final judgment on the long-term consequences of the Iraq War. Neither Walt or anyone else has any idea what Iraq will be like twenty-years from now, or the future state of its relations with the U.S. Walt's blithe assertions reflect an inability to look past present conditions, or consider any possibilities aside from his preconceived assumptions, which he apparently mistakes for facts.

Walt's second point concerns Iran. Here Walt laughably argues that the Obama administration has been too harsh in its demands of Iran. Seriously.

the U.S. position on Iran remains: "first you give us everything we want -- namely, a complete end to nuclear enrichment -- and then we'll be happy to talk about some of the things that you want."

In Walt's world, the U.S. needs to offer up some preliminary concessions to a rogue regime like Iran. Remember, this guy is actually a leading realist. Unfortunately, being a realist school foreign policy proponent apparently has little to do with facing reality.

Naturally the third point is Israel/Palestine, where Walt thinks Obama caved in to the evil Jewish lobby. There's a big surprise. What Obama actually did was to apparently recognize that his one-sided pressure on Israel merely encouraged Palestinian intransigence. He belatedly backed off after risking major damage to U.S. relations with Israel. Obama screwed up badly in the Middle East, but for pretty much exactly the opposite reasons that Walt believes.

And finally there is Afghanistan, where Walt joins the majority narrative that the war is going badly, it's a no-win situation, and Obama's escalation makes it a political albatross. That's his one piece of reasonable analysis, but it didn't exactly require much insight. Overall this was one of Walt's weakest foreignpolicy.com pieces (aside from those directly focused on Israel).

Deporting Gays to Iran

The Obama administration has been bending over backwards to avoid deporting Guantanamo prisoners to countries where they might be mistreated.  That's why we didn't sent the Uighurs to China, even though the Chinese wanted them and it would have been to the U.S. advantage diplomatically. But for some reason, that same administration is scheduled to deport a gay Iranian illegal immigrant back to Iran -- where openly gay people are killed. You'd think this would be a clear case for asylum. There's no question that Iran persecutes homosexuals. But that's not how our bureaucracy operates. 

Abdollahi's case for asylum is not cut and dry: As an undocumented U.S. resident for twenty years, he missed the one-year window of opportunity by law to proactively apply for protected status. He now faces the more difficult task of appealing defensively before an immigration judge.

This man, aside from being gay, has been in the U.S. for twenty years. His parents brought him here when he was four years old. Why is this someone who needs to be deported, let alone to a country that might kill him for his sexual orientation? Is there any better example of the insanity of our immigration laws and bureaucracy? Rather than fighting deportation, Abdollahi should be on a fast-track to U.S. citizenship

Iranian Incursions in Iraq

The New York Times has an article up regarding recent Iranian incursions into Iraqi territory, actions taken ostensibly to strike at Iranian Kurdish rebels taking refuge in Iraq. This isn't the first time for such a cross-border incident.

The shelling here continues a trend of Iranian border incursions during the past 13 months that have included a helicopter attack on Kurdish villages in northern Iraq last May, and the occupation by Iranian soldiers of part of the Fakka oil field in southeastern Iraq for three days last December.

This sort of Iranian provocation, along with other incidents, should never have been tolerated by the U.S. At this point with the U.S. in withdrawal mode, the Iraqi government no doubt fears major problems with Iran, and probably wouldn't thank us for intervening. But Iran has been interfering in Iraq for a long time. It should never have been permitted, particularly when the U.S. was still primarily responsible for Iraqi security.

One of the main reasons for Iran's aggressive rogue state behavior is that it has been able to get away with all sorts of hostile actions, with no serious response by the U.S. Weakness -- in this case self-imposed -- encourages aggression. That has been demonstrated time and time again by Iran. The very first time an Iranian aircraft violated Iraqi airspace it should have been intercepted and destroyed. The very first time Iranian ground forces entered Iraq, they should have been annihilated, and the border post they staged from should have been destroyed with maximum loss of life. That would have been the sort of clear message that the rulers of Iran understand -- that force will be met with superior force. Because that was not done, and many other provocations also went unanswered, Iran has grown bolder and more arrogant, confident that it can do what it wishes without significant consequence. Iraqi Kurds, the ethnic group most closely allied to the U.S., and the most pro-American, are now paying for our failure to act.

Weakness Breeds Agression

Since he became president, Obama has bent over backwards to appease the Russians, most notably by cancelling our Eastern European missile defense plans -- which Russia strenuously opposed -- without demanding or receiving any compensation. Right through to the latest nuclear agreement, the administration's dealings with Russia have projected U.S. weakness, and once again we see the results.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the United States and other Western nations on Thursday against imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program ... Countries facing Security Council sanctions "cannot under any circumstances be the subject of one-sided sanctions imposed by one or other government bypassing the Security Council", Lavrov was quoted as saying by Interfax.

Russia feels confident that it can tell the U.S. directly what it can and cannot do. It can assist a rogue state in obtaining nuclear weapons, in direct opposition to U.S. and European policy, and it can openly block anything from being done about it.

Moscow has indicated it could support broader sanctions but has stressed they must not harm the Iranian people.

I seriously doubt that the government of Russia would care even slightly if every single Iranian suddenly dropped dead. But it has no hesitation in using Iran as a weapon against U.S. interests. By "broader sanctions," it means completely ineffective sanctions that won't change anything. It doesn't even feel the need to tread lightly. And why should it, with Obama in charge of U.S. foreign policy?

Despite his criticism, Lavrov said that relations with the United States had shown clear signs of improvement, specifically with the signing of a nuclear-disarmament treaty that would reduce their deployed nuclear warheads by about 30 percent.

By "relations," Lavrov means Russia's strategic position vis-a-vis the U.S. With an inexperienced foreign policy incompetent in charge in the U.S., whose first instinct is appeasement, advancing Russia's interests at the expense of the U.S. became much easier. That's great for Russia, but not so great for us.

The U.S. in the Middle East: A Bleak Picture

There is an article in Asia Times by Spengler called, "General Petraeus' Thirty Years War." It offers a bleak picture of U.S. Middle East policy and wars, and takes a negative view of the efforts of General Petraeus -- sacrilege to many on the right. Here are some key excerpts. First Iraq:

Starting with Iraq, the American Military has militarized large parts of the Middle East and Central Asia in the name of pacification. And now America is engaged in a grand strategic withdrawal from responsibility in the region, leaving behind men with weapons and excellent reason to use them.

He sees the same thing happening in Afghanistan, and even in Palestine.

under General Keith Dayton, ... America is pouring money - which is to say weapons - into disputed areas ... and building the core of a Palestinian army. The latter's mission is to impose a pro-Western Palestinian government on a population of whom two-thirds oppose the two-state solution. It more likely will end up fighting Israel.

Overall, here's how he describes our policies.

Having armed all sides of the conflict and kept them apart by the threat of arms, the United States now expects to depart leaving in place governments of national reconciliation that will persuade well-armed and well-organized militias to play by the rules. It is perhaps the silliest thing an imperial power ever has done. The British played at divide and conquer, whereas the Americans propose to divide and disappear. ... At some point the whole sorry structure will collapse, and no-one knows it better than Petraeus.

There's much more. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is definitely interesting reading. I think his analysis is certainly valid as a worst-case scenario, and also as an argument about why we shouldn't be in too big of a hurry to withdraw. But shaky constructs don't always collapse. Sometimes they can be reinforced and turned into strong, lasting structures. I'm generally skeptical of predictions of doom in foreign policy, especially when presented as some sort of foregone conclusions. I'm also highly skeptical of Spengler's conspiracy theory-ish treatment of General Petraeus. But having said that, I still think the article is worth a look.

JCS Chairman Reiterates that Wishful Thinking Remains Official U.S. Policy on Iran

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gave a completely useless address today, where he reiterated what everyone already knows regarding the Obama administration's policy -- or lack thereof -- toward Iran's nuclear program.

"The diplomatic, the engagement piece, the sanctions piece, all those things, from my perspective, need to be addressed to possibly have Iran change its mind about where it's headed."

I guess he hasn't noticed the abject failure of that approach. But hey, let's keep pretending. Wishful thinking is great. It removes the need to actually face reality, especially when reality looks pretty ugly. 

Since the Obama administration is powerless to force Iran to get rid of its nuclear aspirations, why not prepare a policy of deterrence?

"There are those that say, 'Come on, Mullen, get over that. They're going to get it. Let's deal with it,'" Mullen said.

People actually think that the government should prepare for something that looks inevitable. Imagine that. But Mullen rejects that out of hand. He's committed to the wishful thinking policy. He actually started talking about all the bad things that might happen if Iran gets nuclear weapons -- as if the people advocating deterrence aren't aware of the drawbacks. Those, such as myself, who have called for a deterrence policy toward Iran, aren't doing so because we are thrilled with the idea of Iran getting nuclear weapons, but because it appears to be the only realistic option. But facing reality isn't part of Obama's foreign policy. In Obama-world, if you talk enough things will magically turn your way. That's their policy and they're sticking to it.

Another Leak of Classified Information

I just got done writing about our seeming inability to keep secrets secret, and today comes another leak of classified information.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability,

The Times describes the document, written by Gates to National Security Advisor General James Jones, as a "highly classified analysis." It's so highly classified that it's in the New York Times where it can be read all over the world.

Yes it's an open secret that the Obama administration doesn't have the slightest clue about how to counter Iran's nuclear program. No doubt Obama is baffled as to why his empty talk and wishful thinking haven't brought positive results. But just because a leak embarrasses the Obama administration doesn't make it a good thing. The leaks have gotten so bad that two senior officials can't correspond with each other at any level of classification, on a sensitive foreign policy issue, without the document appearing in the national press. It's not a good thing if the president's advisors need to watch every word they say when giving supposedly confidential advice, for fear that their words will be exposed in the press. When it comes to national security, intelligence matters, and secret foreign policy deliberations, we don't need more transparency, as some have argued. We need greater secrecy, and more assurance that confidential matters will remain under wraps. 

Double Wishful Thinking

Wishful thinking has been a key plank of Obama's foreign policy throughout his administration. But China has provided another reminder that reality differs sharply from the delusions of the Obama administration.

China insisted Tuesday that it has not shifted its approach on Iran's nuclear program, despite White House claims on Monday that Beijing had become more open to sanctions on Tehran.

Jiang Yu, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, told reporters in Beijing that "China has always believed that sanctions and pressure cannot fundamentally resolve the issue" of concern about Iran's nuclear program, according to the official New China News Agency.

This is an example of double wishful thinking. Obama is  operating under two sets of false assumptions. First is the idea that sanctions are going to do anything to stop Iran's nuclear program. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the administration continues to pretend that  Iranian nuclear ambitions can be derailed through some sort of sanctions.  In reality, there are only two things likely to disrupt Iranian plans: war, or some sort of radical change inside Iran itself. But the Obama administration isn't just content to cling to the comforting delusion that sanctions can solve the problem. It has to go further, and engage in wishful thinking about the involvement of countries like China. 

The Chinese have made it clear that they aren't interested in applying any sort of harsh sanctions to Iran, let alone ones that even in theory might have some chance of halting its nuclear program. Making a false statement that the Chinese are on board, only to have China come out and directly contradict the administration, is just one of the many illustrations of the bumbling incompetence of Obama's foreign policy. It's not the first time he's engaged in such a pretense about sanctions, only to be publicly contradicted.

The White House has recently asserted common ground with Moscow on the issue. Yet last week, in an appearance with Obama in Prague, Czech Republic, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stressed that there were limits to the sanctions that his country was willing to impose.

Wishful thinking about a policy based on wishful thinking. That's what passes for foreign policy in the Obama administration. 

Why Israel Probably Won't Attack

Yesterday, a news story ran about a new Israeli drone that can reach Iran, and there has been increased speculation that Israel will strike to destroy the Iranian nuclear program. I may be wrong, but I think the odds are against an Israeli attack. Here's why.

First, and most importantly, the Iranian nuclear program is not an easy, localized target. It is dispersed in multiple locations throughout the country, and probably hardened to resist attack. The Iranians are well-aware of the possibility of attack, not just from Israel, but from the U.S. I don't overestimate Iranian defensive abilities, but they will do whatever they can to protect those sites. Even poor efforts could be significant given the range from Israel, and the necessity for a sustained air campaign. The military difficulties involved in destroying the Iranian program are daunting, even for the U.S., which has far greater resources than Israel.

Second, Israel has to weigh the costs of a preemptive strike against the benefits. And finally, it has to consider the costs and benefits of not attacking, but of pursuing a policy of defense & deterrence instead. For the first equation, it is the possible cost of not attacking that is most dramatic and often emphasized. That risk is that Iran will not only acquire nuclear weapons, but use them against Israel, or provide them to terrorist proxies. This is rightly seen as an existential threat to Israel. But how serious is that risk? It is extremely unlikely that an Iranian or terrorist first strike would be able to eliminate Israel's nuclear deterrent, especially given the probable location of some nuclear weapons on Israeli submarines. If any significant Israeli nuclear force remains intact after an attack, Iran would suffer a devastating nuclear response, possibly great enough to make a first strike on Israel equivalent to Iranian national suicide. How likely is it that Iran is willing to risk national suicide in order to destroy Israel? Should Israel operate on the basis of what is probably an extremely small risk factor?

If an Iranian nuclear first strike is deemed so unlikely, and I think it should be, then it is also unlikely that the benefits of an Israeli attack outweigh the costs. The probable costs are huge. An Israeli preemptive strike clearly does not have the backing of the Obama administration. How will Israel's greatest ally and protector react to an Israeli policy that not only goes against the direct wishes of the U.S. government, but also might plunge the region into war, destabilize Iraq, divert U.S. attention from Afghanistan, drive up the price of oil, and incur all sorts of other disastrous potential consequences? And that's not even considering the possible direct cost of Iranian retaliation against Israel itself -- all for an attack that most experts think will be able to do no more than delay the Iranian nuclear program.

In contrast, a policy of defense and deterrence seems to offer a far better cost-benefit calculus. By maintaining the capacity to retaliate with overwhelming force, combined with the degree of protection offered by its developing multi-layered missile defenses, Israel should be able to deter any Iranian nuclear attack. For this reason I think it is unlikely that Israel will strike Iran. In order to attack, fear of the worst-case scenario, a suicidal Iranian regime that launches a first strike, has to take precedence over a cold cost-benefit analysis. That's always possible. It may be that Israel will decide that no matter the consequences, no matter if all they are able to achieve is a delay in Iran's nuclear aspirations, that they simply can't risk a nuclear Iran. I know there are people who see things that way, both here and in Israel. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Laughing at Hillary & Obama

It's hard not to laugh when reading front page news today about Hillary, Obama & Iran. It's a carnival of foreign policy cluelessness. Here's Hillary,

“We see that the government in Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the Parliament, is being supplanted and that Iran is moving towards a military dictatorship.”

From this quote it appears that Clinton actually thinks the current government has some sort of legitimacy, and that we should worry about it being supplanted, as if it were just some normal state rather than a theocracy that conducted a sham election, and is currently engaged in a vicious repression of dissent.

she reiterated that the United States had no plans to carry out a military strike against the Iranian government.

Yeah, that's real smart. We are trying to pressure them on their nuclear program, but let's tell them that the only thing they actually fear isn't going to happen.

Her comments on Monday underscored the Obama administration’s determination to single out the elite corps as a way to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

Translation: They don't have the slightest idea what to do. Appeasement hasn't worked, and they are looking for some narrow way to impose sanctions and pretend they are actually doing something.

“We have bent over backwards to say to the Islamic Republic of Iran that we are willing to have a constructive conversation about how they can align themselves with international norms and rules and re-enter as full members of the international community,” Mr. Obama said in a news conference last Tuesday. “They have made their choice so far.”

Yes you have. And it was pretty stupid. How about waking up? Obama still hasn't figured out that Iran isn't worried about the so-called "international community." Their entire policy toward Iran is a big joke, and they still don't get it. 

Why Russia & China Favor a Nuclear Iran

There's an interesting article in the New Republic called, "Bombs Away: The real reason why Russia and China aren’t interested in stopping Iran’s nuclear program." The author, Matthew Kroenig, rejects the common explanation that Russian and Chinese economic ties with Iran are the primary reason for their assistance with its nuclear aspirations, and for their reluctance to do anything about it. Instead he looks toward strategic reasons. He argues that both countries see a nuclear Iran as a constraint on U.S. power in the Middle East -- a constraint that will not affect Russian & China because they lack force projection capabilities in the region.

An Iranian bomb, then, won’t disadvantage China or Russia. In fact, it might even help them. Neither country has hidden its desire to hem in America’s unilateral ability to project power, and a nuclear-armed Iran would certainly mean a more constrained U.S. military in the Middle East. Indeed, at times during the 1980s and 1990s, Beijing and Moscow aided Tehran with important aspects of its nuclear program.

It's nice to see an argument on this issue that gets away from economic determinism and looks toward power politics and grand strategy. I think the author is probably correct in his view of Russian & Chinese motives. Where I disagree with him is on his analysis of the U.S. side of the equation. Here he offers a reverse of Chinese & Russian motivations. The U.S. opposes proliferation in Iran because it constrains U.S. power projection in the region.

Of course, there are the concerns of accidental nuclear detonation, nuclear terrorism, or even nuclear war. But these are all extremely low probability events. The primary threat of nuclear proliferation is that it constrains the freedom of powerful states to use or threaten to use force abroad. ... In nearly every historical instance of proliferation, beginning with China in the 1960s, the United States opposed nuclear proliferation in large part because it wanted to preserve its military freedom of action. ... Although Washington might not have immediate plans to use force in the Middle East, it would like to keep the option open.

Although I agree that this reasoning is certainly part of the U.S. desire to block Iranian nuclear weapons, I think he ignores other obvious reasons of greater significance. First and foremost, Iran is a rogue state ruled by radical Islamic fanatics hostile to the U.S., and has been conducting a low level proxy war against U.S. forces in the region. It's not really necessary to look for deep strategic reasons to understand why the U.S. would want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the mullahs. If Iran was ruled by a more responsible government that just happened to be aligned against the U.S., the author's argument would be more convincing. 

Second, Kroenig ignores the threat to Israel in his calculations. This is a key reason the U.S. opposes a nuclear weapon in Iranian hands. Israel rightly sees such weapons as an existential threat, and the U.S. would rather not be sucked into a Middle East war if the Israelis decide they must act to preempt the threat.  And third, there is the fear that even if war doesn't break out right way, that an Iranian bomb will precipitate a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, with other countries feeling that they need to obtain weapons, leading to a general destabilization of the region with unknown consequences. 

In my opinion, the nature of the Iranian regime, its hostility toward the U.S., the threat to Israel, the fear of being drawn into a war, and worries about the stability of the region as a whole are far more significant motivations for U.S. opposition to Iranian nuclear arms than our desire to maintain future force projection capabilities in the region.

Australia Blocks WMD-related Exports to Iran

The lead story in Australian news sources is that the government has employed "special powers" three times to block some exports to Iran.

at least one prohibition notice related to a planned shipment of pumps that could have been used to cool nuclear power plants.

Unlike some countries that pretend to be unsure about whether Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, the Australian government is apparently convinced.

if you look at the threat to regional and global peace which Iran poses in its current nuclear weapons program there is no alternative other than robust international action including in areas such as this.

It's nice to see that one of our allies is at least willing to take economic measures against its own corporations that want to do business in Iran. 

Another Case Against Sanctions

I generally oppose the use of sanctions, which are essentially a projection of weakness. The use of sanctions sends the message that we don't like something, but we aren't really serious about doing anything about it. It's a half-measure that avoids making tough decisions, and allows politicians to pretend they are actually addressing a foreign policy issue. Sanctions on Iran are particularly pointless, since they will be undercut by Russia and China, among others. This week U.S. business groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Foreign Trade Association present another argument against sanctions.

the proposed sanctions "could prohibit any U.S. company from transacting routine business with critical partners from around the globe even if these transactions have no bearing on business" with the Islamic Republic.

"The proposals could have a large impact on the U.S. Export-Import Bank, precluding it from partnering with counterpart agencies abroad to co-finance U.S. exports that have no relation to Iran’s energy sector,"

Apparently sanctions could penalize businesses doing business with businesses doing business with Iran -- if that's not too confusing. I'm not sure if their argument is correct, but it wouldn't surprise me a bit if sanctions had unintended consequences that ended up hurting U.S. business, while doing nothing to stop Iran's nuclear program.