MoJo Convo: Iran Panic? Talk About It With the Experts

Before picking up on some of the issues raised in this exchange, let me stress that I think a military strike would be extremely ill-advised, and again my bottom-line assessment is that it will not happen. The capacity for miscalculation by any or all of the parties does concern me. And if the covert-ops discussed in Sy Hersh's article are true, then this too could fall into the category of a potentially game-changing miscalculation with appalling consequences.

I agree with those posts that have cautioned against exaggerating the Iranian threat and that have expressed a degree of dismay at the way the discussion (not necessarily here but in the mainstream media) is framed. Personally, I do not think that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, let alone the U.S. But I would also urge people to also not go to far in the other direction of being irresponsibly dismissive of some of what Iran is up to in the region. First of all, people should find the rhetoric of the Iranian President offensive. Secondly, Iran is facilitating some thoroughly unpleasant actors and actions in the region. That combination of rhetoric, actions, and possible pursuit of a nuclear capacity makes Israelis genuinely concerned. Even if there is manipulation and scare-mongering going on here (and there is), Israelis feel threatened. It is widely assumed that Israel has its own toys with which to respond on a rainy day and I recognize that Israel itself maintains an aggressive occupation and is certainly far from angelic in its behavior. I just think that people should factor in Israeli public concern as something that is real.

Responding to a few of the questions raised, I do think that an attack on Iran would further endanger U.S. troops in Iraq and this is one reason that the Pentagon appears to be very opposed to such an action.

Regarding the Swiss-mediated Iranian negotiation offer in 2003, I can say with great confidence from my own years of track 2 negations that documents like this rarely come into existence without the serious input of the relevant party (in this case Iran). While such a document may not constitute the exact contours of a possible deal, it certainly reflects the thinking of prominent Iranians. It is almost redundant to point out that such a document, or the other creative solutions discussed here?such as a multilateral enrichment consortium (here is Thomas Pickering et al. in the NYRB) can only be fully explored and tested if the taboo on direct negotiations with Iran is broken (as Sen. Obama advocates).

On the question of whether Islamists can be a serious party to negotiations?well there is plenty of experience with that, for instance with Iran in the Afghanistan negotiations of 2001-02; or just ask the government of Israel (yes, in Jerusalem) what it is up to right now with both Hamas and Hezbollah.

And on Congressional resolution 362 which was mentioned, which I do not think was particularly constructive, it is explicitly not an authorization of an act of war or naval blockade?something recognized by its sponsors and also, to be fair, by AIPAC.

Finally though, I'd really like to draw everyone's attention to a fantastic op-ed in today's International Herald Tribune by Jim Dobbins. Here it is?and it's a must read. Here is an extensive quote from the op-ed:

Consideration of how best to deal with the challenge posed by Iran logically depends on where one places that country on the spectrum of potential adversaries.

Is Iran a country like Grenada or Panama, one that can do America no serious harm, and that the United States can therefore safely afford to ignore, or overrun, at its discretion?
Or is Iran more akin to the former Soviet Union or China, an adversary that can do American great harm, and that Washington cannot afford to ignore, or overrun?

If one concludes that Iran is closer to the Soviet Union than Grenada on this spectrum, then the military option is probably not an expedient response to anything the Iranians might do short of overt aggression.

After all, the United States never threatened to use force to take out Soviet or Chinese nuclear facilities. It did not bomb China when that country sent a million men to battle American troops in Korea. It did not even attack Soviet or Chinese ships supplying North Vietnam during the war in Indochina. Washington found a myriad of ways to discipline, punish, contain, contend with and, in the case of the Soviet Union, eventually defeat its Cold War adversaries. But pre-emptive attack was never one of them?

Taking the military option off the table might come at some cost if there were good reason to believe that Iran could be coerced into giving up its nuclear program.
There is, however, better reason to believe that the threat of attack is a prime motivation for the Iranian program. As long as the United States maintains a military establishment, the military option remains available. Taking this threat off the table, and putting it in a readily available drawer, would improve the prospects for negotiation while avoiding the most likely result of the current approach, which is that in the end America either has its bluff called or finds itself launching a war it cannot win.

Negotiation does not always lead to accommodation, but it does always yield more insights. Talking to Iran will not necessarily produce agreement. It will provide more information, which will in turn lead to more options, better choices and wiser policy.

nation and world briefs
Iran evidence ignored, ex-Cia agent claims
Denver Post Wire Report
Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 12:58:05 AM MDT

WASHINGTON ? A former CIA operative who says he tried to warn the agency about faulty intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs now contends that CIA officials also ignored evidence that Iran had suspended work on a nuclear bomb.

The one-time undercover agent, who has been barred by the CIA from using his real name, filed a motion in federal court late Friday asking the government to declassify legal documents describing what he says was a deliberate suppression of findings on Iran that were contrary to agency views at the time.

"On five occasions he was ordered to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all," said his attorney, Roy Krieger.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano flatly rejected the allegation that the agency had suppressed reports.

The very idea that Israel is allowed to conduct a unilateral foreign policy?built on the threat of preemption as a central tool for their foreign policy means that the US obviously carries little respect for most Middle Eastern states . Listening to Bush speak of "appeasement" standing before the Knesset was basically like throwing excrement in the face of the Arabs?since the only state in the region being appeased is Israel.

This has not always been the case since the situation was no better when it was the Arab states that unilaterally attacked Israel back in 1967 and 1973 (they were appeased by the USSR), but it reveals why few gains have been made in the Middle East since the creation of the Israeli state 60 years ago. The US has failed to act as an unbiased mediator with a clear objective?to create a situation where the states that comprise the Middle East recognized that they are better off in a state of peace and cooperation than they are in a state of war.

The struggle in the Middle East, like most struggles anywhere, is basically one of endurance and this endurance has a price. The price being paid by the guerillas is one of flesh and carnage?but in terms of economic costs they are operating at bargain basement prices while both Israel and the US operate at unsustainable levels of costs.

It would seem that so-called 'war on terrorism' has shown us that because of the economics involved, it is impossible to occupy and control the Middle East militarily. That only through willing consent can any form of occupation work (though making ourselves present in this form will only provoke and inspire terrorism), but it means that the US must recognize that a source of the problem is the mentality that rules Israel itself?Israel is suffering from collective post traumatic stress syndrome. Carter showed that it is possible to create conditions for peace.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Bush there has been some success in the world?especially in regards to Libya and North Korea. Had the Bush administration been strong on its commitment towards democracy they would have stopped the Israeli attack on Lebanon by threatening Israel economically?the reason for this is because Lebanon represented the 1st real democracy to appear after the invasion of Iraq?instead of Lebanon being proof of the Bush concept of bringing democracy to the Middle East, it became proof that the Bush administration could care less about democracy.

The logic of many Arab states is probably something along the lines that the quicker the US depletes its economic advantages the faster Israel itself will collapse since Israel is dependent upon being subsidized by the US in order to maintain its military readiness.

One would think that the failure of Israel to successfully occupy Lebanon ought to send out warning signals to the US?that Israel's ability to military control the states surrounding it are dwindling because their opponents are dug in. During the last 30 years the military advantage that Israel has had in the region has altered because the method of fighting has changed?the guerillas have improved their technique while the Israelis have not. The opponent has discovered that it isn't necessary to engage Israel directly on the battlefield but rather it is far superior to "bleed" them by means of a perpetual guerrilla war, which in turn means that they bleed the US. At some point in time the US will not being able to compensate Israel for its military readiness because the US deficit will have grown so great that they have no money to offer?we are rapidly approaching that situation now. If the US were to invade Iran the Budget deficit of the US would hit a trillion dollars plus in deficit spending, where the money needed to fund Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and potentially a Pakistan war as well would leave Americans at home literally eating their meals from the garbage heap.

While this "bleeding" is effective it creates the problem that anarchy breeds?these gangs of militants can't be controlled because they have no central system of order and thus their demands are hollow because neither Hamas or the PLO can control their fractions?something that Israel capitalizes on.

With that said it would seem that another war in the region will not yield any positive result, but would add to a further meltdown in the world economy?especially exacerbating the food crisis through increasing prices. Thanks to the ignorance of the US Congress, as well as a misinformed American public in regards to Iraq, we see today that any disruption in the stability of the Middle East results in skyrocketing oil prices and in a way that has become independent of real costs in terms of oil production (the price is independent of supply and demand) and have become equally independent of the value of the American dollar. The relationship between the US dollar and the national income of oil producing nations means that if being strong on "American national security" is the alleged foundation behind much of present day American foreign policy (domestic too) then it means that the US must achieve a balanced budget and can't run a significantly large trade deficit and it means that household savings must be larger. This would suggest the US is not in a position to attack Iran?but in 2003 it wasn't in a position to attack either.

The US dollar has weakened because of the black-hole magnitude of the budget deficit. The price of oil should not be any higher than around 60 dollars a barrel?but it has been allowed to run amok most likely because of the banking crisis?allowing banks and investment houses to win money on oil speculation. (the demand for oil globally has decreased so the high prices are through the speculative market mechanisms which requires immediate attention through some form of a global economic summit where the speculator is stopped?oil must be brought into sync with the dollar and the US budget brought into balance to stabilize world pricing)

The problem of course is at the present price of oil the entire world is destabilized and this will mean that within a relative short period of time the complexity and the volume of violent hotspots around the world will increase dramatically?meaning the US military will not be able to be moved to the Middle East just in case Bush decides one additional act of insanity before leaving office ?the US military is already overstretched as things stand and we are clearly moving in on far more turbulent times?thus Iraq was not doable in real military terms because the number of troops needed wasn't possible to obtain, nor were the necessary logistics in place (the ability to feed up to 15 million people ought to have been a prerequisite to invade Iraq) and the reliability of private contractors or mercenaries has proven to be a disaster. Just think that for 11 billion in corruption via the Oil for Food program Iraq was stable, fed and the region was stable?that's a cheap price compared to the insanity of today.

To attack Iran is more than a question of choice, it is equally one of consequence. I certainly think that the President is correct in terms of a firm commitment to not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapons (But I personally don't think Iran wants them but rather the Bush administration wants us to believe they do and is doing everything in its power to create that illusion, just as it did with Iraq)?though the fact that Israel has them weakens the American position globally in terms of its stance on non-proliferation, making diplomatic agreements throughout the region difficult. The region ought to be a 100% nuclear weapons free zone but the US offers Israel special consideration?meaning they are favored over all other states in the region?no matter how disgusting their actions are (this contradiction in policy weakens the US ability to function as a "leader").

The present situation in Iran is by no means critical and like North Korea one must simply remain persistent on achieving diplomatic solutions?most important is to bring Iran in from the cold and into the world community, where the natural autonomy of functioning as member of the world community would function as a means of toning down their actions while achieving an effective means to control the enrichment program. The enrichment of uranium cannot be viewed as a "national right" because it is something that affects the security of the world and consequently must be controlled. If Iran's desire is to see to it that Israel's weapons are removed, then opening up its nuclear activities to UN control would offer them and all states in the Middle East a means to control Israel. By actively opening up they can say ? they have no WMD but Israel does?this way they could force the US to either assume a consistent standpoint in regards to non-proliferation or force them to look like a biased and unjust "tyrant" whose rule of law appeases Israeli aggression, while it punishes other nations without any grounds whatsoever. So either the US would force Israel to dismantle its weapons or else appear as an unethical, unjust, dictator. Ultimately Israel would be forced to dismantle its nukes.

The true hotspot is Pakistan where nuclear weapons exist in an environment of instability and where American and allied troops on the boarder of Pakistan could unleash unforeseen and negative consequences in the constellation of power within Pakistan itself?we have already gotten a glimpse of the tension but should things break out into civil war, then Pakistan will be the center of the war on terrorism because it is there atomic weapons can be won and the ultimate terrorist weapon could fall into the hands of the lunatics.. .. . most likely an invasion or an attack on Iran would result in a total meltdown in Pakistan and from Lebanon into Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan their would be anarchy and the US incapable of dealing with it?because they don't have the resources to do this nor the wisdom.

The US must make a more firm commitment to Russia and China?because it needs their bargaining power at the table when dealing with Iran and nuclear enrichment. By doing this Bush would be able to finish what he started when he brought Putin over to his ranch for a barbeque Texas style and made a good friend to have. Unfortunately the president hasn't followed up on this?now is the time to meet some of Russia's needs?like no weapons in Poland, no radar system in the Czech Republic?create a joint EU-US-Russian effort in Azerbaijan (missile defense) and then go to Tehran with the Russians, and equally critical is China. The business relationship of the US and China is a critical one, just like it is for Japan and China?meaning it is possible to be "friends" and the time to take new friends to Tehran is today and just as Christopher Hill proved that negotiation is the cheapest tool to achieve one's ends, it would be possible to achieve this in Iran as well.

Mark,
You are profoundly off-base to suggest that I was in any way advocating the use of military force against Iran. I was simply noting that what may seem like a silver bullet to solving the Iranian-enrichment issue?establishing a multinational consortium to operate a facility in Iran?involves a number hurdles for both Iran and potential partners that its proponents underestimate. Of course, Iran under the NPT is entitled to develop the full nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes. It's worth noting for some perspective on this issue that there are today about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in some 33 countries. There are only eight or so countries producing fuel for their own reactors or with commercial enrichment facilities. This is because it makes little economic sense to develop and operate the full fuel cycle, in particular the enrichment or reprocessing component. Of course, Iran is free to spend its money in any way it sees fit. But is also reasonable to seek assurances that its intentions are in fact peaceful, and an honest reading of Iran's record at minimum raises questions about those intentions.

Before picking up on some of the issues raised in this exchange, let me stress that I think a military strike would be extremely ill-advised, and again my bottom-line assessment is that it will not happen. The capacity for miscalculation by any or all of the parties does concern me. And if the covert-ops discussed in Sy Hersh's article are true, then this too could fall into the category of a potentially game-changing miscalculation with appalling consequences.

I agree with those posts that have cautioned against exaggerating the Iranian threat and that have expressed a degree of dismay at the way the discussion (not necessarily here but in the mainstream media) is framed. Personally, I do not think that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, let alone the U.S. But I would also urge people to also not go to far in the other direction of being irresponsibly dismissive of some of what Iran is up to in the region. First of all, people should find the rhetoric of the Iranian President offensive. Secondly, Iran is facilitating some thoroughly unpleasant actors and actions in the region. That combination of rhetoric, actions, and possible pursuit of a nuclear capacity makes Israelis genuinely concerned. Even if there is manipulation and scare-mongering going on here (and there is), Israelis feel threatened. It is widely assumed that Israel has its own toys with which to respond on a rainy day and I recognize that Israel itself maintains an aggressive occupation and is certainly far from angelic in its behavior. I just think that people should factor in Israeli public concern as something that is real.

Responding to a few of the questions raised, I do think that an attack on Iran would further endanger U.S. troops in Iraq and this is one reason that the Pentagon appears to be very opposed to such an action.

Regarding the Swiss-mediated Iranian negotiation offer in 2003, I can say with great confidence from my own years of track 2 negations that documents like this rarely come into existence without the serious input of the relevant party (in this case Iran). While such a document may not constitute the exact contours of a possible deal, it certainly reflects the thinking of prominent Iranians. It is almost redundant to point out that such a document, or the other creative solutions discussed here?such as a multilateral enrichment consortium (here is Thomas Pickering et al. in the NYRB) can only be fully explored and tested if the taboo on direct negotiations with Iran is broken (as Sen. Obama advocates).

On the question of whether Islamists can be a serious party to negotiations?well there is plenty of experience with that, for instance with Iran in the Afghanistan negotiations of 2001-02; or just ask the government of Israel (yes, in Jerusalem) what it is up to right now with both Hamas and Hezbollah.

And on Congressional resolution 362 which was mentioned, which I do not think was particularly constructive, it is explicitly not an authorization of an act of war or naval blockade?something recognized by its sponsors and also, to be fair, by AIPAC.

Finally though, I'd really like to draw everyone's attention to a fantastic op-ed in today's International Herald Tribune by Jim Dobbins. Here it is?and it's a must read. Here is an extensive quote from the op-ed:

Consideration of how best to deal with the challenge posed by Iran logically depends on where one places that country on the spectrum of potential adversaries.

Is Iran a country like Grenada or Panama, one that can do America no serious harm, and that the United States can therefore safely afford to ignore, or overrun, at its discretion?
Or is Iran more akin to the former Soviet Union or China, an adversary that can do American great harm, and that Washington cannot afford to ignore, or overrun?

If one concludes that Iran is closer to the Soviet Union than Grenada on this spectrum, then the military option is probably not an expedient response to anything the Iranians might do short of overt aggression.

After all, the United States never threatened to use force to take out Soviet or Chinese nuclear facilities. It did not bomb China when that country sent a million men to battle American troops in Korea. It did not even attack Soviet or Chinese ships supplying North Vietnam during the war in Indochina. Washington found a myriad of ways to discipline, punish, contain, contend with and, in the case of the Soviet Union, eventually defeat its Cold War adversaries. But pre-emptive attack was never one of them?

Taking the military option off the table might come at some cost if there were good reason to believe that Iran could be coerced into giving up its nuclear program.
There is, however, better reason to believe that the threat of attack is a prime motivation for the Iranian program. As long as the United States maintains a military establishment, the military option remains available. Taking this threat off the table, and putting it in a readily available drawer, would improve the prospects for negotiation while avoiding the most likely result of the current approach, which is that in the end America either has its bluff called or finds itself launching a war it cannot win.

Negotiation does not always lead to accommodation, but it does always yield more insights. Talking to Iran will not necessarily produce agreement. It will provide more information, which will in turn lead to more options, better choices and wiser policy.

nation and world briefs
Iran evidence ignored, ex-Cia agent claims
Denver Post Wire Report
Article Last Updated: 07/01/2008 12:58:05 AM MDT

WASHINGTON ? A former CIA operative who says he tried to warn the agency about faulty intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs now contends that CIA officials also ignored evidence that Iran had suspended work on a nuclear bomb.

The one-time undercover agent, who has been barred by the CIA from using his real name, filed a motion in federal court late Friday asking the government to declassify legal documents describing what he says was a deliberate suppression of findings on Iran that were contrary to agency views at the time.

"On five occasions he was ordered to either falsify his reporting on WMD in the Near East, or not to file his reports at all," said his attorney, Roy Krieger.

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano flatly rejected the allegation that the agency had suppressed reports.

Ms Shire, my point was that you experts aren't talking about Iran's offers. But in any case you're being a bit disingenious. Most of the reactors you mentioned are in developed countries which either have their own nuclear fuel industry, or, quite unlike Iran, are in no danger of having nuclear fuel withheld from them by the self-appointed monopolizers of nuclear technology. And though not many countries have enrichment capabilities yet, Iran has joined a growing club (Brazil, Argentina recently joined, Namibia, Uganda, Egypt may soon join.)
And, most important of all, the reason the Iranians want their own nuclear fuel capability is for STRATEGIC rather than simply economic reasons: to have a secure source of energy for their economy.

You know this, as do I. So you're raising such a facetious argument only bolsters my view that you "experts" aren't being honest - yet again - about what's really going on.

Funny how iran's nuclear program only NOW supposedly doesn't make economic sense -- when the US was encouraging and participating in the same program under the Shah, as Washington Post reported:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

I also suggest reading:
Iran's strong case for nuclear power is obscured by UN sanctions and geopolitics
Author: David Wood
Journal: Atoms for Peace: an International Journal
2007 - Vol. 1, No.4 pp. 287 - 300

and

Iran's identified uranium ore reserves could produce as much electricity as that from some 45 billion barrels of oil ? about one-third of Iran's proven oil reserves ? with almost zero emissions and atmospheric pollution.
Energy Tribune Dec. 11, 2006

Funny how our media and the experts present us with a FALSE DILEMMA according to which we either have to sanction/bomb Iran or else face being nuked by Iran. This is simply not the case. Not only are Iran's centrifuges under IAEA safeguards but Iran has made a perfectly reasonable suggestion to resolve the standoff that is widely endorsed by American and international experts: multilateral enrichment on Iranian soil. This would address any REAL concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation whilst recognizing Iran's legitimate and inalienable rights too. And that's precisely why the Bush administration and our media are ignoring it - they are using the nuke issue as a pretext and smokescreen for aggression and the promotion of Israel's regional dominance. A secure and stable Iran with good relations with the US represents a threat to Israel. That's what the real "Iranian threat" consists of.

Would an attack on Iran by either Israel or the U.S. lead to significantly increased attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq by Iranian sympatizers?

I side with Danny Postel on this one. Whether the likelihood of an attack is low or high, the entire saber-rattling exercise is deeply disturbing.

One of my hopes is that with an Obama Administration (if that happens) at least 1/2 of the insanity in the current policy approaches of Israel & the U.S. to Iran will be eliminiated. That just leaves a hot-headed Israel to worry about.

What most worries me about Israeli policy options is that they went into the Lebanon war with such delusions about what they could accomplish. An Iran adventure would be virtually the same type of situation: much ballyhoo about eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat, a strike of limited success, then Iranian blowback that turns the region into a smoking ruin.

If Israel was stupid enough to sink into the Big Muddy in Lebanon, what's to hold them back from doing the same in Iran?

While I detest Ehud Barak politically, I'm hoping that he'll be a far stronger, wiser & more strategic defense minister than Amir Peretz was during the Lebanon misadventure. While Barak rattles sabers w. the best (or worst) of them, perhaps he has just enough saychel ("common sense") to know what Israel can & cannot achieve w. the military option regarding Iran.

It is end of the road for current status quo for Israel Iran and US. Israel after 60 years has not fixed it's internal and external problems. What is the best they can do? they try to distract it's people by saber rattling their tail on attacking Iran with media support and half truth information.

On the other hand the mullah's of Iran have also failed after 30 years of ruling Iran internally. But they have successfully made this nuclear power situation a national event and have Iranian people's full support.

And US after killing 100s of 1000s maybe million people and destroying a country without any results needs to find another mess to distract its people's mind. But Americans will always remember the 4000+ young kids lost their lives for nothing in Iraq.

So go ahead Israel, attack Iran let see if your people will be more safe, but this will not solve your Palestinian issue or GolanHight issue or Lebanon issue.

If Israel wants real peace, she will go back to its 1967 borders, kick all the settlers out of occupied territories, compensate all the Palestinians they forced out of Palestine in 1948 and dismantle its nukes.

On the other hand US will force the Arab states to recognize Israel or they will not protect their so called governments from its own people.

Yes it is close to a dream and a big gamble with a good chance of no peace but it is better than a nuclear war.

On the subject of the multilateral enrichment solution - just a few thoughts.
Yes, Iran has suggested this and several credible academic-based analyses have also proposed an Iran-based multilateral enrichment effort as a solution. While in an ideal world such an initiative would be most welcome, and perhaps a way can still be found to make it possible, it faces a number of hurdles. One is how the technology transfer would be addressed--would Iran accept "black-box" centrifuge enrichment technology that is several generations ahead of its current centrifuges at Natanz? Especially if in practice this resulted in Iranian employees of the facility being barred from certain areas or functions? If enrichment-services providers were found to operate Iran's current, early-generation centrifuge cascades, they would face the lack of their commercial viability, and likely need for government (I suppose not impossible, but hard to imagine the hearings on U.S. funding to support an international consortium enriching uranium in Iran.) Even if the regulatory, commercial-viability, tech transfer issues could be addressed, there is still the issue of whether this is a good precedent to set internationally for sound nonproliferation policies. In the bigger picture, especially as nuclear energy expands, a broader approach to controlling enrichment and reprocessing technologies is needed regardless of where the enrichment is taking place. For these reasons, I am of the view that mechanisms like guaranteed fuel supplies, "buffer stocks," and the international fuel bank initiative, are better mechanisms for addressing the enrichment proliferation dilemma.

Incidentally, multilateral enrichment was one of many Iranian compromise offers that the US has refused to even acknowledge, along with Iran's 2003 comprehensive peace offer (which Rice falsely claimed she had never seen.) Other suggestions by Iran included placing legally-enforced and monitored upper limits on its enrichment program to make sure it can't create the "Highly Enriched" uranium necessary for bombs, to always immediately convert its uranium to fuel rods so that it can't be diverted to make bombs, and many others. The US has insisted on totally ignoring these options. Read more at http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php

Finally, whether the US thinks that sharing enrichment technology with Iran is a good idea or not, other countries are going the way of Iran:
"Developing nations are skeptical of the intentions of the five original nuclear states and are reluctant to give up the option of enriching uranium. Developing nations say they don't want to give up their rights to uranium enrichment and don't trust the United States or other nuclear countries to be consistent suppliers of the nuclear material they would need to run their power plants.
(See New Global Nuclear Order; Los Angeles Times October 15, 2006 )

Are you seriously suggesting that a war on Iran is preferable than to even exploring the Iranian offers through real diplomatic efforts? Don't other countries such as Brazil and Argentina also have similar nuclear programs? Seems to me that we're trying to rewrite the rules of non-proliferation at the point of a gun. Maybe there really is another agenda at work here.

BTW...if anyone believes that Iranian nukes are or would be an actual threat to US soil I have some time share in Iraq that you can also buy.

I agree with Richard with one exception: Iran's air defenses are not what they could or should be.

Ref:

....As mentioned previously, the remainder of the [Iranian] air defense network is primarily situated to provide point defense and as such does not represent a serious threat to a dedicated and sophisticated enemy. Even lesser-equipped nations would be able to explot the various gaps and vulnerabilities in the network provided the SA-5s could be neutralized in some fashion, be it through ECM, technical capability, or direct attack.

But that being said, relax, an overt attack on Iran by Israel or the United States is not going to happen. This demonisation of and supposed "threat" posed by Iran has been one long psy-ops campaign by Israel and the United States.

For Israel such a mission is out of the question. They don't have the conventional capability. Israel only has ~10 tankers in its air force and those can support maybe 100 aircraft for an hypothetical an attack on Iran. The complex logistics of mid-air refueling and maintaining surprise while conducting a raid involving that many aircraft on a long-range flight over politically sensitive or hostile territory (Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Syria) is implausible.

In other words the Iranians would have fair warning the Israelis are on their way and would take appropriate steps to alert their air defenses and move their scientists and technicians to safety if an attack were launched.

In addition, if the Israelis fly through and refuel in Iraqi airspace that would de facto involve the governments of Iraq and the United States in an unprovoked attack on Iran. Iraqi and American permission for the Israelis to do that would justify Iranian retaliation against Iraqi and U.S. interests, such as destabilisation of the Iraqi government and covert attacks against U.S troops in the region as mentioned below.

According to retired General Barry MacCaffrey, appearing on a panel discussion with Leon Panetta and televised on C-SPAN, the U.S. intelligence services have identified approximately 70 sites inside Iran that are related to Iran's nuclear program. One hundred aircraft can hit seventy sites but that would not be sufficient airpower to guarantee acceptable results. Mr Trita Parsi makes a crucial point here: An attack on Iran by Israel must be devastating and highly successful, otherwise Israel's military capability becomes even more suspect. Israel lost significant military prestige in its 2006 war with Hizbullah in Lebanon. An attack on nuclear facilities in Iran that results in only partial destruction and leaves most of the program intact and the technical people still living will further erode Israel's military reputation.

Regarding a possible American attack, the Americans at the moment do not have sufficient assets in place to undertake that mission:

If the 54 Burke-class destroyers and the 22 Ticonderoga-cruisers all carry 32 Tomahawks; if the 3 converted Ohio-class SSGN submarines carry 154 cruise missiles and the 50 Los Angeles-class submarines carry 16 Tomahawks, the total number of weapons that can be deployed is, 3694. The conventional armed (1000 lb bomb) Tomahawk has a range of 900 nm. Hint; the US Navy doesn't have 3694 Tomahawks either. [That claim is not supported with references.]

The Americans have approximately 5300 cruise missiles in their inventory (~1600 air launced along with ~3700 sea launched) so a bombardment via stand-off systems is theoretically possible. However recent military history illustrates that the Americans restrict their attacks to nations they perceive to be "weak sisters" such as Iraq, Panama and Grenada. The Iranians are 70 million strong, well fed, well armed, well rested. They live in the region while the Americans would be putting themselves in a position of having to maintain and supply an army during an increased level of conflict half way round the world.

In the event that the Americans nevertheless did attack, that would still leave U.S. ground forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In retaliation for an air/missile attack on their territory the Iranians would likely concentrate their efforts on punishing U.S. troops in those countries. If the Iranians decide to fully commit themselves and their resources to engaging U.S. troops in the neighborhood, as well as destabilising Iraq, the American military will never achieve anything approaching political success in Iraq unless they can invade and occupy Iran. That is not possible given the current size of the U.S. Army, Marine Corps and mercenary forces.

Secretary of Defense Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, "We'll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America." The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the "real objective" of U.S. policy was to change the Iranians' behavior, and that "attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice."

HOLD ON! Am I to understand from Hass's post and Shire's response that Iran, the country that Bush accuses of secretly making nukes to attack Israel, actually offered to open their nuclear program for international participation, and we smacked back their offer without consideration? OBVIOUSLY there's something else going on here that's not being discussed.

Ms Shire: I am not exactly sure how bombing a civilian, IAEA-monitored, NPT-compliant nuclear energy program in Iran which started under the Shah at the encouragement of the United States because it makes economic sense, is a "a good precedent to set internationally for sound nonproliferation policies" either.

Mark,

No where does Shire suggest bombing Iran is a good precedent. Did you draw that out of thin air?

Her post concludes that "We are left to continue watching closely all the variables and pressing for a diplomatic resolution."

It's propagandistic and disingeuous to suggest Shire is saying anything that could be construed as advocating striking Iran. On the contrary.

And keep in mind, the question posed to the panel above is not about what they advocate, but what they think will happen or not and why.

I chose the question because there has been so much panic in various communitities that possible military confrontation was imminent. I wanted to provide a forum where those who have some insights into whether that seemed likely could offer their insights to readers and readers could engage with them directly. Those who offered to take their time to provide that deserve a bit more respect, at least not to have their words misconstrued.

Mark,
You are profoundly off-base to suggest that I was in any way advocating the use of military force against Iran. I was simply noting that what may seem like a silver bullet to solving the Iranian-enrichment issue—establishing a multinational consortium to operate a facility in Iran—involves a number hurdles for both Iran and potential partners that its proponents underestimate. Of course, Iran under the NPT is entitled to develop the full nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes. It's worth noting for some perspective on this issue that there are today about 440 nuclear power reactors operating in some 33 countries. There are only eight or so countries producing fuel for their own reactors or with commercial enrichment facilities. This is because it makes little economic sense to develop and operate the full fuel cycle, in particular the enrichment or reprocessing component. Of course, Iran is free to spend its money in any way it sees fit. But is also reasonable to seek assurances that its intentions are in fact peaceful, and an honest reading of Iran's record at minimum raises questions about those intentions.

Ms Shire, my point was that you experts aren't talking about Iran's offers. But in any case you're being a bit disingenious. Most of the reactors you mentioned are in developed countries which either have their own nuclear fuel industry, or, quite unlike Iran, are in no danger of having nuclear fuel withheld from them by the self-appointed monopolizers of nuclear technology. And though not many countries have enrichment capabilities yet, Iran has joined a growing club (Brazil, Argentina recently joined, Namibia, Uganda, Egypt may soon join.)
And, most important of all, the reason the Iranians want their own nuclear fuel capability is for STRATEGIC rather than simply economic reasons: to have a secure source of energy for their economy.

You know this, as do I. So you're raising such a facetious argument only bolsters my view that you "experts" aren't being honest - yet again - about what's really going on.

Funny how iran's nuclear program only NOW supposedly doesn't make economic sense -- when the US was encouraging and participating in the same program under the Shah, as Washington Post reported:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

I also suggest reading:
Iran's strong case for nuclear power is obscured by UN sanctions and geopolitics
Author: David Wood
Journal: Atoms for Peace: an International Journal
2007 - Vol. 1, No.4 pp. 287 - 300

and

Iran's identified uranium ore reserves could produce as much electricity as that from some 45 billion barrels of oil – about one-third of Iran's proven oil reserves – with almost zero emissions and atmospheric pollution.
Energy Tribune Dec. 11, 2006

Iran attempts at negotiation? What a fool you are! What the hell do you think we've doing for 30 goddamn years since they invaded our sovereign soil and held our hostages for 444 days? Not even a meager apology to our citizens... Only a fool will continue to negotiate with a gay-murdering, mysogynistic animal who unabashedly makes claims for 'nuking' the US, Israel blah, blah, blah. Besides you retard, Ahmadinejad and his henchmen are repeatedly on record saying sanctions and negotiations WILL NOT MAKE THEM STOP developing nukes. Do you self-serving Americans actually ever listen to what Ahmadinejad says? Or do you just like flapping your self-entitled pie holes???