Iran and the Bomb

[dai bread]

An interesting concept. From what I've read about her, Condoleeza Rice seems to be a very impressive woman, as well as being good-looking. All the more impressive for being a Republican, and therefore out of favour with the "news" media who fawn over Democrat presidents.

[Haggis@wk]

The Iranian crisis erodes the regime, as the ambassador to Norway seems to be seeking asylum.

Norway's NRK TV quotes Iranian consul Mohammed Reza Heydari as saying the treatment of protesters last month made him realise he "couldn't continue".
Opposition websites in Iran say he has defected and is seeking asylum.

He's not the first diplomat to resign; their ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva quietly stepped down a couple of months ago. He went back to his family in Iran.

Mr. Obama could regain some serious approval ratings if he came out to provide moral support to the revolutionaries as well as covert support with material to make the revolution an “armed” one.

A successful revolution would be the best chance of keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of religious fanatics. And he appears to have recognized that the current government doesn’t want to talk to him no matter what he does.

If he votes “present” on this by keeping silent and the revolution does succeed he’ll have passed up a very real chance to obtain some leveraging power with the new government.

[dai bread]

Covert support from Americans is not possible. Someone, somewhere, will want to strut his ego by running to a reporter with "news", or by posting the information on a website.

[Haggis@wk]

I said on this thread Summer 2008 that:

If Israel attacks Iran, U.S. military and civilian shipping in the Persian Gulf will be attacked by Iran almost immediately.

If we have an aircraft carrier in the Gulf an attack on it will constitute an attack on a national resource and would invite retaliation just shy of nuclear weapons.

Based on information available to me, news, opinions, etc, an attack on Iran by Israel has more downside than up, especially for the U.S. and the U.S. Navy. We have some ground based resources in the area but the chances are better than average that the host countries will forbid any attack on Iran because they don’t want to be seen as supporting Israel.

In that event the U.S. Navy will be the only significant force available

More evidence: Iran says may hit Western warships if attacked

[Haggis@wk]

Shockingly, it looks like the all-talk-no-action approach is failing with Iran.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the nation will deliver a harsh blow to the “global arrogance” on this year’s anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.

“The Islamic Revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race, which was trapped in the dead ends of materialism,” Ahmadinejad said during a cabinet meeting on Sunday.

“If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles,” he added.

Ahmadinejad said that in the three decades of its history, the Islamic Revolution had inspired some great developments in the world.

Obama has no understanding of the gravity of this situation, yet he’s our Commander in Chief. He holds the security of our nation in his hands. And when we are getting threatened by Iran over and over and over again, his response has been to basically do nothing each time. He’s got no courage whatsoever, and while Iran might not make us first on their list of countries to attack (I believe that would be Israel), they will attack somewhere and people will be killed that didn’t need to die.

Granted, Ahmadinejad is a nutcase and this might be more hot air but I'd take it seriously.



Credit where credit is due? (as an aside, once again we have to go to the foreign press to get this kind of news.)

The US is dispatching Patriot defensive missiles to four countries – Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait – and keeping two ships in the Gulf capable of shooting down Iranian missiles. Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia develop a force to protect its oil installations.

American officials said the move is aimed at deterring an attack by Iran and reassuring Gulf states fearful that Tehran might react to sanctions by striking at US allies in the region. Washington is also seeking to discourage Israel from a strike against Iran by demonstrating that the US is prepared to contain any threat.

The deployment comes after Obama’s attempts to emphasise diplomacy over confrontation in dealing with Iran – a contrast to the Bush administration’s approach – have failed to persuade Tehran to open its nuclear installations to international controls. The White House is now trying to engineer agreement for sanctions focused on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, believed to be in charge of the atomic programme.
Washington has not formally announced the deployment of the Patriots and other anti-missile systems, but by leaking it to American newspapers the administration is evidently seeking to alert Tehran to a hardening of its position. (Emphasis added.)

exit question: Do these moves signal that Obama is taking the Iranian threat seriously, or are they another sign that he is planning for the day that the “international community” failed to stop Iran from getting the bomb?

[Shapley]

You must have missed this. It was posted yesterday on several U.S. Websites:

U.S. Steps Up Arms Sales In Gulf Region

The Obama administration is quietly working with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies to speed up arms sales and rapidly upgrade defenses for oil terminals and other key infrastructure in a bid to thwart future military attacks by Iran, according to former and current U.S. and Middle Eastern government officials.

The initiatives, including a U.S.-backed plan to triple the size of a 10,000-man protection force in Saudi Arabia, are part of a broader push that includes unprecedented coordination of air defenses and expanded joint exercises between the U.S. and Arab militaries, the officials said. All appear to be aimed at increasing pressure on Tehran.

But, just to makes sure credit is given where credit is due:

The efforts build on commitments by the George W. Bush administration to sell warplanes and antimissile systems to friendly Arab states to counter Iran's growing conventional arsenal. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia are leading a regionwide military buildup that has resulted in more than $25 billion in U.S. arms purchases in the past two years alone.

As I said before, Mr. Obama may not like to give any credit to President Bush, but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

[DavidS]

“The Islamic Revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race, which was trapped in the dead ends of materialism,” Ahmadinejad said during a cabinet meeting on Sunday.

“If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles,” he added.

Ahmadinejad said that in the three decades of its history, the Islamic Revolution had inspired some great developments in the world.

The way they treat women worse than animals and murder those who dare to object to their methods - how can he have the gall to talk about human dignity???
The answer:

Ahmadinejad is a nutcase and this might be more hot air but I'd take it seriously.

Yes, work and pray for peace - but be prepared for war; take it seriously because he is an irresponsible nutcase.

[Haggis@wk]

Ahmadinejad Predicts the ‘End of American Civilization’.

Of course, he may have just seen Jersey Shore. In which case, well, he’s got a point.

[Trumpetmaster]

the man is nuts

but I do fear he will use nuclear weapons on Israel and drive us into WW III

[DavidS]

the man is nuts

but I do fear he will use nuclear weapons on Israel and drive us into WW III

History is full of crazy leaders: King Saul, Antiochus, Genghis Khan, King George III, Napoleon, Hitler, Idi Amin...to name a few; this time the stakes are as high as ever. Is he going to be stopped before, or after, the demise of humanity?

[Trumpetmaster]

the man is nuts

but I do fear he will use nuclear weapons on Israel and drive us into WW III

History is full of crazy leaders: King Saul, Antiochus, Genghis Khan, King George III, Napoleon, Hitler, Idi Amin...to name a few; this time the stakes are as high as ever. Is he going to be stopped before, or after, the demise of humanity?

David,
I agree with you... but these crazy leaders did not have nuclear weapons....
The stakes are high and he really needs to be stopped (IMHO)
TM

[dai bread]

If Western governments keep their sticky fingers out of Iranian affairs, Iranians will topple him for you. There's plenty of dissatisfaction with his rule, and with the mullahs.

[DavidS]

If Western governments keep their sticky fingers out of Iranian affairs, Iranians will topple him for you. There's plenty of dissatisfaction with his rule, and with the mullahs.

I'm sure that's very likely, but may we rely on it? If it doesn't happen or is delayed, the world is really up the creek...

[jamiebk]

This reminds me of the song "How are you going to keep them down on the Farm, after they've see Paris?". Whether it's Iran, or China, the internet is bringing the world to people who would otherwise remain oblivious to how people live in most of the world. Freedoms, material wealth, and pursuit of happiness (lifestyle) are strong attractors. Leaders of these repressive countries are hardpressed to keep a lid on things and I believe that the masses will eventually overthrow the nut cases who lead them. It takes time and patience...most Americans lack the later.

[analog]

This reminds me of the song "How are you going to keep them down on the Farm, after they've see Paris?". Whether it's Iran, or China, the internet is bringing the world to people who would otherwise remain oblivious to how people live in most of the world. Freedoms, material wealth, and pursuit of happiness (lifestyle) are strong attractors. Leaders of these repressive countries are hardpressed to keep a lid on things and I believe that the masses will eventually overthrow the nut cases who lead them. It takes time and patience...most Americans lack the later.

Internet ?

I think it's Walmart.

How Ironic - "the folks the left loves to hate" are the harbingers of world peace...

May Sami Walton designer jeans replace those Burquas.

a.

[dai bread]

Somebody said a while ago, apropos Afghanistan, "Don't bother sending troops. Just drop in some VCRs and videotapes".

The person was right.

[Haggis@wk]

Mark Steyn

It is now certain that Tehran will get its nukes, and very soon. This is the biggest abdication of responsibility by the western powers since the 1930s. It is far worse than Pakistan going nuclear, which, after all, was just another thing the CIA failed to see coming.

In this case, the slow-motion nuclearization conducted in full view and through years of tortuous diplomatic charades and endlessly rescheduled looming deadlines is not just a victory for Iran but a decisive defeat for the United States. It confirms the Islamo-Sino-Russo-everybody else diagnosis of Washington as a hollow superpower that no longer has the will or sense of purpose to enforce the global order. ...

[E]ven without launching a single missile Iran will at a stroke have transformed much of the map -- and not just in the Middle East, where the Sunni dictatorships face a choice between an unsought nuclear arms race or a future as Iranian client states.

In Eastern Europe, a nuclear Iran will vastly advance Russia's plans for a de facto reconstitution of its old empire: In an unstable world, Putin will offer himself as the protection racket you can rely on. And you'd be surprised how far west "Eastern" Europe extends:

Moscow's strategic view is of a continent not only energy-dependent on Russia but also security-dependent. And, when every European city is within range of Teheran and other psycho states, there'll be plenty of takers for that when the alternative is an effete and feckless Washington.

Will the Obama administration care? Will it notice?

[analog]

Will the Obama administration care? Will it notice?

My bet is they'll notice but not do much.

Zbigniew Brzezinski i think was Columbia's department head when Barack was there studying politics and foreign affairs... I think he still wields influence if only through CSIS.....
here's his take on it last month:

PROVO — If Iran obtains nuclear weapons, it's not the end of the world, a former national security adviser told a standing-room- only audience at BYU.

"Use of force (against Iran) is as much of a disaster as Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, who advised former President Jimmy Carter and is a professor of American Foreign Policy at Johns Hopkins University.

Brzezinski explained that if the United States bombed Iran because of fears of nuclear weapons, the consequences would be negative and, for the most part, unpredictable.

However, if the U.S. knew Iran had a nuclear bomb, it could work on disengagement, which had already worked with Stalin and Mao Zedong.

"There is a tendency to think that we are being strategically very clever by the reiteration that force is not off the table," Brzezinski said. "And the problem with that is, it doesn't drive the Iranians toward accommodation; it drives them toward nationalist unity against us and makes the negotiation process less likely to succeed."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7053 ... .html?pg=1


and last paragraphs of this article from CSIS magazine......
http://www.twq.com/10january/docs/10jan_Chubin.pdf

Indeed, since meaningful change in behaviorwould
require a change in the regime, engagement should be seen as ameans of encouraging
regime evolution which will eventually empower those elements in Iran most
interested in mutually respectful relations. To this end, the United States should
intensify its public diplomacy to communicate its goals and policies to the Iranian
people, including any inducement packages offered and refused by the current regime.
................

A different regime, more accountable and transparent, would be a more
satisfactory interlocutor, more likely to be given the benefit of the doubt, and
able to conclude a more durable agreement. One cannot choose one’s
negotiating partner, but it is as well to recognize that the heart of the problem
with Iran goes to the regime itself and especially those elements in it that
resist its evolution toward normalization, a wish the majority of the Iranian
people have supported. For them, hopes for a better future revolve around
normalization. The events of 2009 have only underscored this yearning.
The United States will therefore need to balance its own concern to stop the
nuclear clock in Iran with its broader objective of stabilizing the Middle East.
Iranians in Iran will have to determine their own future, and recent events have
shown that, while they seek independence, they also seek freedom, along with a
government that they can hold accountable. This is consistent with U.S. values
and very much in the interests of both countries. It would be advisable for the
United States to keep this broader objective in mind while dealing with the
nuclear issue.

Sounds like he's being advised to keep on trying for regime change.
Better get Walmart on that job, pronto...

a.

[dai bread]

"Me against my brother.
My brother and me against our cousin.
My brother, my cousin and me against the outsider."

[analog]

Looks like our media is being primed to accept a nuclear armed Iran.....

from Foreign Affairs magazine:
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... s-the-bomb

After Iran Gets the Bomb

Containment and Its Complications

James M. Lindsay and Ray Takeyh
March/April 2010


The Islamic Republic of Iran is determined to become the world's tenth nuclear power. It is defying its international obligations and resisting concerted diplomatic pressure to stop it from enriching uranium. It has flouted several UN Security Council resolutions directing it to suspend enrichment and has refused to fully explain its nuclear activities to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even a successful military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would delay Iran's program by only a few years, and it would almost certainly harden Tehran's determination to go nuclear. The ongoing political unrest in Iran could topple the regime, leading to fundamental changes in Tehran's foreign policy and ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. But that is an outcome that cannot be assumed. If Iran's nuclear program continues to progress at its current rate, Tehran could have the nuclear material needed to build a bomb before U.S. President Barack Obama's current term in office expires.....

watch our news, see if rhetoric starts to turn conciliatory.

....this calls for Gloria Vanderbilt jeans ....

a.