Iran and Your Pocketbook
An Associated Press (AP) article caught my eye recently. Readers know, if they’ve visited my blog, that Iran and its nuclear aspirations is of significant interest to me and with the present political upheaval that is in play in many Middle-Eastern Muslim nations a nuclear armed country with ‘edgy’ leadership concerns me. The article at http://t.uani.com/hpv5IZ reports that NATO forces seized powerful Iranian-made rockets being smuggled into Afghanistan for the Taliban’s upcoming spring campaign. The prospect of those rockets being unleashed on Coalition forces is a dreadful thought and the willful—not so clandestine—effort on the part of Ahmadinejad is just another piece of evidence underscoring the edgy leadership must be neutralized.
Remember the Cold War standoff between the USSR and US, the threat was always there that collectively both countries could literally incinerate each other. That same ominous prospect also kept us—and them—safe. Mutually assured destruction (MAD) in and of itself was a great deterrent but today it offers very little in the way of restraint when one considers the fact that Muslim extremists are manipulating the minds of their youth with martyrdom nonsense, feeding the young and vulnerable myths of what to expect from Allah after they’ve given their mortal lives with a bomb strapped to them.
Trying to understand and simultaneously untangle the current political set of circumstances in Iran is a futile effort. There seems to be no head on this snake, so to speak, no one entity or person that stands out as a leader we and the mentally stable citizens of that country can put their trust in. Another analogy might be that there are too many heads on this snake. There is the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader and his group. Then there is Ahmadinejad, the President and his followers. You can’t overlook Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, Ahmadinejad’s right-hand man who has implicit power within Iran’s secular government and Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, spiritual advisor to Ahmadinejad, described as fanatical and extremely hostile to the West. Yazdi advocates suicide bombing attacks against Israel and is a vocal supporter of Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. The Islamist group Hamas, Iran’s proxy militants governing the Gaza Strip, set off a bomb at a bus stop in Jerusalem killing one and injuring thirty yesterday a fulfillment of but one of Yazdi’s extremist’s wishes.
All of this; NATO’s capture of 50 powerful rockets, Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons, the recent bus stop bombing in Jerusalem and much, much more only highlights a growing threat that emphasizes the fragile relationship between the West and Iran. We all know, whether we consciously acknowledge it or not, the US has entered the ring in a no-holds-barred fist fight to the finish. As many political, military and economic strategists have warned—it is time to tighten our belts and prepare for true austerity. The money to support this fight has got to come from somewhere and that somewhere is our pockets. I am not opposed, many are, but the alternative to not winning this fight, I am afraid, is a scenario I prefer not to consider, one much worse than we can imagine.
PROTRACTION, DISTRACTION AND EVENTUAL U.S. DOMINATION
I am at a loss when trying to understand diplomacy from an American’s point of view. It seems to me diplomacy should be conducted in a fashion similar to a competitive sport in that there are rules to be followed in carrying out the various strategies brought to the field of play (or conference table). The rules are set forth and agreed upon by each of the teams (countries) and there are referees (the UN) present to assure everyone plays by those rules. With globalization in full swing one would think this form of civilization management would be welcomed with open arms. However, this isn’t the case; in fact it is far from it. The US, one of the countries adapting to such a philosophy, finds itself between a rock and a hard place because of our adherence to such strict protocol. I am not suggesting we toss the protocol, not at all, but those in the field of diplomacy must understand the consequences of allowing countries such as Iran to stage-manage us and, for the most part, I think they do. However, I am not sure President Obama does and ultimately he is the go-to-man when it comes to such matters.
Continuing on using the competitive sport example this is how I see it. The two teams (A & B) show up on game day, they vow to follow the rules or face consequences (penalties) and the game begins. Half way through the first period team A—Iran for instance—decides to change the rules without proper notification of team B—the U.S. Soon team B notices a change in the rules that has benefited team A and calls a time out. Coaches, captains, referees meet to discuss the rule change and eventually, through civil negotiations, the rule change is agreed upon by both teams and the game begins again. In the meantime, while negotiations were being conducted, team A has gained a small edge and as team B makes the adjustments necessary in order to abide by the new rule change team A calls for another review by the referee charging that team B manipulated the new rule to their advantage—whether they did or didn’t is irrelevant. While the referee, captains and coaches discuss the allegation made by team A against team B team A gains another edge. After a series of these strategic moves team A has accumulated a rather powerful advantage against team B. Ironically team B is wholly aware of what is taking place but because of its desire to remain transparent and true to the original rules of the game it is rendered impotent and impotence breeds more impotence resulting, eventually, in team A’s dominance over team B. Following the rules of the game is a noble aspiration when others agree and follow too but at some point—when an apposing team doesn’t—the gloves must come off. That doesn’t mean throwing the rule book away, it simply represents a refusal on the part of team B to allow rule boundary expansion under any circumstance. Think President Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Only a few play by the rules and those that don’t have an ulterior motive for not following regulations specific to maintaining peace around the globe. Those motives, while ulterior, are obvious; world domination, imposition of a certain culture or religion or the eradication of a culture and/or religion. Right now the US is waiting to see how sanctions against Iran will work in persuading that leadership to finally agree to halt their quest for nuclear weapons. I’ll stick my neck out here and say, ‘sanctions will not work’, and it is reasonable to think Iran has a plan brewing to make the US and our allies think they are working while continuing on with the aforementioned quest. Some day within the next few years, maybe sooner than later if we leave the gloves on and continue to pull punches, we will awaken to the news that Iran has a workable missile and a nuclear warhead atop it and it is aimed at Israel. I am not saying they will fire the missile, but just having it on the launch pad is enough to change the Middle-East geopolitical dynamics forever.
Marvin Wiebener, author of this piece has also written a novel, The Moriah Ruse, that explains in a very entertaining manner one option to the above dilemma. You may view his publications at www.marvinwiebener.com. Wiebener also features a blog where this commentary can be found as well as many other articles concerning Iran.
A Strike Is Looming
If Iran and the US continue on the present trajectory I am afraid another conflict will ensue, not conventional warfare but a strike on that countries uranium enrichment facilities’. The loss of life will be minimal, a truly unfortunate outcome of even a surgical attack but more satisfactory than soldiers and Marines against Iran’s military. A strike of this nature will set Iran’s nuclear program back a decade or so giving diplomacy another chance. You can bet the farm on world-wide outrage coming in the form of threats by some of our allies and accusations that America and our immoral ways is at the root of terrorism. Most of the threats and accusations will be rhetoric, words spoken to mislead less sophisticated governments and cultures that most everyone on the planet agrees that the US is at fault, as usual. The truth, of course, is most of those countries will be delighted that Iran’s nuclear buildup is temporarily in shambles. This situation is truly unfortunate, there are few winners, hardly any but given that as a fact the US must act soon. And how would this be done? As I write there are strategist hunkered around planning tables in the Pentagon working on many different scenarios.
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of UPI and the following is his most recent article:
Officially, all the Arab rulers of the Gulf and other Arab leaders are strenuously opposed to any Israeli and/or U.S. air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. But that opposition is eroding rapidly.
Speaking at the Aspen Institute in Colorado last week, the United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef al-Otaiba said publicly - before denying it - "I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion, there will be consequences, there will be a backlash, and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what."
And he added, "If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that, versus living with a nuclear Iran, my answer is still the same - 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.'" A former Arab leader, in close touch with current leaders, speaking privately and not for attribution, told this reporter July 6, "All the Middle Eastern and Gulf leaders now want Iran taken out of the nuclear arms business, and they all know sanctions won't work."
In a joint op-ed column, former Sen. Chuck Robb and Gen. Charles F. Wald, the air commander in the opening stages of Operation Enduring Freedom in Oct. 2001, say the time is now to prepare credibly for a U.S. military strike. "Sanctions can be effective only if coupled with open preparation for the military option as a last resort ... publicly playing down potential military options has weakened our leverage with Tehran, making a peaceful resolution less likely."
The temptation for President Obama to double down on Iran will grow rapidly as he concludes that Afghanistan will remain a festering sore as far as anyone can peer into a murky future, hardly a recipe for success at the polls in November. With a war in Afghanistan, which is bound to get worse, and a military theater in Iraq replete with sectarian violence, the bombing of Iran may give Mr. Obama a three-front war - and a chance to retain both houses of Congress. End of article.
The above article is reprinted with permission and it represents a fair share of the thinking within the the United Arab Emirates as well as most European and Southeast Asian countries. The point here is that Obama must toss his social work approach in favor of a much more aggressive stance.
http://marvinwiebener.tatepublishing.net
If Diplomacy Fails
Disorder and confusion seem accurate descriptive words when describing what is going on in and around Iran these days. But those terms don’t necessarily apply to that country alone. Half of the world—those countries with a vested interest in what’s going on there—are just as susceptible to the disarray.
According to a NYT report dated June 14, 2010 Senator McCain (who I am a fan of) called on the US to support regime change in Tehran, saying the UN sanctions are ‘inadequate’ and that it is unrealistic to expect the current government (Ahmadinejad/Khamenei and the IRGC) to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, supporting terrorism and cracking down on its own people.
Is there anyone in any of the pseudo or semi civilized countries around the globe that doesn’t know the UN sanctions are inadequate? And that it is unrealistic to expect… All this talk is wearing me down and personally I am so far removed from all that is going on regarding nukes and Iran that I can’t imagine what a burden it is to all who are immersed in the fray all day everyday. The problem lies in how we—the good guys, the naïve guys and the scared guys—respond to Iran’s slight-of-hand, shuck-and-jive, smoke-and-mirror approach to negotiations. All of us together—The US, China, Russia, GB, France—can not proffer a plan acceptable to the Islamic Republic that’s in turn acceptable to the participating countries. After a while everyone gets tired of the rhetoric and lack of success and just wants to go out for a drink or round of golf. In the meantime the citizens of Iran are between a rock and a hard place, suffering the consequences of their leader’s errant ways while the IRGC gets closer and closer to building a bomb.
I have a question, just curious; what would be the outcome, the price some country would pay in aftermath consequences if that country slapped Ahmadinejad with missiles through the front door of two or three nuclear enrichment facilities? We know the global uproar would be deafening but like everything else the hue and cry would be short lived. Of course there would be loss of life and, of course, there would be anti-US or GB or Israeli sentiment floating about and it would take time to recover diplomatically. However, the rhetoric used to chastise that government would most likely be in the form of an artificial rebuke to be documented within UN records. No government lashing out at the country responsible for the missiles would actually mean what they say. The ulterior message on the other hand would be tacit approval.
Now, all that country—the one willing to strike the enrichment facilities—has to do is make sure Iran is in fact enriching uranium to weapons grade and exactly where they are doing it. When it comes to aggression there is no room for error, there will be errors enough even if the strike is absolutely perfect.
Marvin Wiebener
Making a Point
I did not think it would be a mistake to take a few weeks away from posting to this blog and I was right. Scanning through news about Iran and her president Ahmadinejad I find the same or nearly the same banter taking place now as was making news six weeks ago. The word game continues and I suppose that is okay as long as President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton don’t blink. As I’ve mentioned in previous articles we’ve already taken a weaker stand by the mere fact the US continues to move its line-in-the-sand back not forward. The AP reported two weeks ago that Sec’y Clinton vowed the Obama administration will not accept a nuclear armed Iran and is working on sanctions “that will bite”. Just how many ways and how many times will the US make threats before actually doing something. Any child psychologist will tell parents not to threaten unless you are willing to back it up. It’s not just good child psychology it is also common sense. Some time in the near future the US will need to make a serious point and the longer we wait the more serious the point will have to be.
Ahmadinejad the Predictable
Keeping track of Ahmadinejad and his plans for a nuclear armed Iran has been both enlightening and predictable. How many times have we read headlines quoting A-jad saying, “Iran’s nuclear activities are geared solely toward generating electricity.” One thing I’ve learned over the short 66 years I have been alive is that if you say something enough times, no matter how ludicrous, it becomes a fact to some. Think Hitler, you can’t tell me that all his followers were fire-breathing, psychopathic monsters, no you can’t. Those men that opted to become monsters themselves did so after hearing Adolph proclaim in hundreds of speeches that he—and his faithful followers—were of a superior race. They heard that trash long enough to buy it. That’s what A-jad is hoping for now, that the community of leaders within the IAEA will begin to believe him. He is even using old and overused transparent rhetoric accusing the US, and allies, of forging documents that supposedly prove Iran is enriching uranium far beyond what is needed to produce electricity. Opponents of the certainty Iran has a secret A-bomb program going on somewhere in the high desert keep calling everyone’s attention to the US mess in Iraq. We were certain weapons of mass destruction were being made and stockpiled. Our downsized intelligence gathering agencies did not have a good handle on that certainty and it cost America dearly in credibility. Now, there’s reason to not trust what the US is telling the world and A-jad is capitalizing on that.
According to a recent story in Foreign Policy magazines morning brief A-jad is still lambasting Mousavi, the opposition leader, and his followers. Even the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told Ahmadinejad to be open to benevolent criticism. But being open is not the way of psychopaths (Hitler) nor extremists (A-jad). Being open is a sign of weakness to both, whether it is or isn’t. The fact is the Hitler’s and Ahmadinejad’s believe it. Their jobs are to convince others and, unfortunately, they do far too often.
A Pragmatic Approach to Iran’s Nuclear Capability
There are numerous reports, some conflicting, that Iran is only six months away from being ready to test an A-bomb. That may be true but even if it isn’t everyone knows they are headed in that direction.
From a pragmatist’s point of view—if the above is true and Ahmadinejad carries out the threat he made to the world regarding Israel’s nuclear extinction—this is how it would look. According to a recent article in The National Post destruction would be demonic and in turn could trigger a worldwide economic collapse. Take just a few seconds and imagine what the US healthcare system would look like then. Think about pension plans and social security; think about food supplies, energy supplies. The list grows like Pinocchio’s nose. Oh, I forgot to mention what Washington DC’s Center for Strategic and International Studies concluded about such an event. If Iran lobbed a relatively small 100-kiloton nuke at Israel and Israel returned a lob of its own from just some of its 200 (much more powerful bombs) the Center estimates, at the low end, sixteen million deaths within three weeks. The deterrent of mutually assured destruction only works when the folks who have their fingers on the red button are not quite ready to meet their maker. On the other hand those button pushers expecting a harem of virgins awaiting them might be motivated to expedite the event.
According to AFP report carried on United Against Nuclear Iran’s website Republican Senators Jon Kyl, John McCain; Independent Joseph Lieberman; and Dem Senator Evan Bayh urged Obama to prepare sanctions targeting the Central Bank of Iran in the event of diplomatic stalemate. Remember, Obama offered his hand to Ahmadinejad in an effort to solve the nuke matter diplomatically. Many folks, this blogger included, had doubts the overture would work. President Obama, thinking he was the new face of America, offered his open hand to prevent ‘a closed fist’ approach later. Sanctions aren’t likely to work either. So, what’s next?