Red Lines, Red Zones, and Green Lights
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to the UN should be evaluated in light of the new report issued this week by the Washington Institute on Near East Policy, authored by Patrick Clawson and David Makovsky and titled “Preventing an Iranian Nuclear Breakout: U.S.-Israel Coordination.” At a policy forum held to discuss the report, Clawson explained why President Obama’s policy to “prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” is one that “sounds like a straightforward redline … [b]ut it is not.”
Clawson gave three reasons, but there is actually a fourth one, even more persuasive. Here are the three reasons Clawson gave:
First, ambiguity. Iran could imitate its neighbor Pakistan by producing all the parts for a nuclear weapon — indeed, for several such weapons — and almost entirely assembling them. Yet because the last screw had not been tightened, the U.S. government certified to Congress each year that Pakistan did not have a nuclear weapon … In Iran’s case, it is possible a U.S. president would find it so inconvenient to say Iran had nuclear weapons that he would use a lawyerly subterfuge to evade an unpleasant truth.
Second, uncertainty. … [T]he intelligence community is going to be very cautious about stating with high confidence Iran has a nuclear weapon. The I.C. will search for every possible alternative explanation of whatever it has found, because it will want to avoid sending yet another president off to war on the basis of wrong information. …
Third, preoccupation. … Iran can wait to cross the nuclear threshold at a propitious moment, such as when the world is preoccupied elsewhere or when Iran’s help is needed with some other international problem. … No matter how much the president may be determined to stop Iran from going nuclear, if he is preoccupied when Iran goes for a breakout, he may have to hold off.
Let’s remember that in 2007, Israel brought unmistakable evidence to the White House that North Korea was assisting Syria in building an undeclared nuclear plant, and asked the U.S. to strike it — a military action President Bush wrote in his memoir would have been “no sweat.” Vice President Cheney believed a U.S. strike would send a signal not only to Syria and North Korea, but also to Iran, that the U.S. was serious about its warnings against nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorist states, and that they faced the possibility of military action if diplomacy failed. But Bush decided he could not strike, because the U.S. intelligence community certified only a “low degree of confidence” that Syria had a nuclear weapons program.
Let’s also remember that in 2011 the director of national intelligence for the Obama administration reported that “we do not know whether [North Korea] has produced nuclear weapons, but we assess it has the capability to do so” — and then in 2012 the DNI, citing the same evidence cited the year before, reported that “North Korea has produced nuclear weapons.” The 2012 assessment apparently reflected a revised intelligence judgment, rather than new evidence — showing that once a nuclear weapons capability is achieved, the decision to move to actual production is made in secret, and discovered (like the Iranian underground facility at Qom) after the fact.
Here’s the deal, at least concerning what is most ‘likely’ the current calculus –
http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/09/29/pm-netanyahus-red-line-graph-at-the-un-why-grace-period-moved-another-6-months-irans-response-adina-kutnicki/
Keep it in mind.
Perhaps the most interesting part of the Netanyahu speech was his delineation of the socio-political cause of the conflict between Israel, Iran, and Israel’s Araba neighbors. We don’t always see things as Bibi laid out, and I have not seen a media report on this important aspect of his speech. I did lay it out here: http://clarespark.com/2012/09/28/bibi-and-the-human-nature-debate/. It is no accident that the first part of the speech has been ignored, for few dare defend modernity today, at least not in such explicit terms.
Clare — that is an important observation about Netanyahu’s speech, and you produced a fascinating post.
As much as I hope you are correct, I stopped reading Debka years ago when I found few of their revelations to be close to correct.
Here’s the deal, at least concerning what is most ‘likely’ the current calculus –
2012/09/29/pm-netanyahus-red-line-graph-at-the-un-why-grace-period-moved-another-6-months-irans-response-adina-kutnicki/
Keep it in mind.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but both North Korea and Pakistan had to test fire a nuclear weapon just to see if it actually worked. I don’t think you can actually say that you have a nuclear weapon without testing one first. There are so many moving parts to a nuclear weapon, so many things have to happen in the right order, and so many things have to take place before a blast occurs that I would think the Iranians would actually have to test a bomb, even if it’s on a small scale. After all, the last thing the Iranians want to do is say they have a nuclear bomb when, in reality, it’s an expensive dud.
So I’m thinking that somewhere during this process the Iranians are going to have to test a nuclear bomb. This will show the world that A) they actually HAVE a nuclear bomb and B) that it works. Even the North Koreans went down this road, so there is no reason to believe that the Iranians will not follow this same path. And remember, North Korea has literally tons of UN “sanctions” placed against it and North Korea is shunned by most of the world, yet they STILL managed to make a nuclear bomb. So, is Obama telling me that these new sanctions against Iran will stop their nuclear program? Give me a break. Israel has every right to be worried. And so should we.
The Iranians and North Koreans are working together at this. If Iran has the materials, they can find out from North Korea if it will work. They do not need to test one.
And if they did, they could already have several assembled. If their test works, then it is too late to stop them.
It doesn’t seem entirely out of character for Obama to say things he has no intention of doing. What’ we view as appeasement on his part, is probably a deliberate and willful policy to allow Iran to develop a weapon. I can’t help thinking this is another manifestation of his naive reasoning that America has wrongly characterized Islamic regimes as a threat, and does not believe state sponsored terrorism exists. At every point in the last 4 years he’s had to choose between an ally and an unknown opposition, he’s chosen the forces he didn’t know, ignoring warnings those forces were likely to be Islamic extremists. When Iranians revolted against Islamic rule, he sided with the rulers.
In my opinion, Obama is quite comfortable with a nuclear Iran, and his actions support his willingness to back Islamic extremists ( while posturing the opposite way) at every opportunity. He won’t say terrorist because he really doesn’t see them that way. Obama is telling us with his actions what he thinks, but we often miss it, believing its weakness, unable to accept he doesn’t share the opinions we do about radical Islam.
Obama does not want to attack Iran. He doesn’t want Israel to attack, either. I don’t think he sees the problem with them having a nuclear bomb. He thinks his charm will keep them from attacking the US, and he doesn’t care about Israel.
But once Iran has the bomb, they won’t stop with Israel. The US, and all the Sunni states are targets as well.
And the reason Obama doesn’t want to set a red line is that if Iran passes the line, it gives a green light to Israel, even if the US doesn’t join in.
Poor Netanyahu! Explaining to the assembled morons at the U.N., how crazy Iran is and how dangerous, with charts and diagrams and maybe a flannel-board, as if they were a bunch of kindergarten students. If only they had that much sense!
Of course, Obama is a lost cause for Israel. He is infected with the reflexive, non-thinking anti-Semitism of a certain strain of low-brow blacks, on the order of Jeremiah Wright, Farrakhan, et al. He’s never going to give Israel a break. (Or the United States either, for that matter, if it’s a choice between us and his Muslim homies.)
I WISH NETANYAHU WOULD SIMPLY TURN IRANS NUCLEAR SITES INTO A SLICK SHEET OF GLASS ALREADY ! QUIT WAITING , BIBI , AND DO IT ; WAR WITH IRAN IS INEVITABLE , SO QUIT HESITATING ; YOU’RE A STRONG MAN AND HESITATION DOES’NT BECOME YOU .
I agree that war is inevitable, but that does not mean that timing loses all importance.
Making war on Iran, even if Iran ceases to be any threat to Israel, will still have consequences that affect Israel’s future. Israel would still be surrounded by teeming hordes of enemies and Israel’s standing would be affected in a world where many already see her as an “illegitimate state”.
Gradualism might likely lead to a slow death. I am no fan of FDR, but he did understand that that one cannot go to war without complete support of the people, something that many of our presidents, especially GWB, would have been better off had they understood.
The US must show strength and leadership to the global community by drawing red-line on Iran’s nuclear program. By setting a firm line, the US sends a clear message to Iran their actions are unacceptable to the international community.
This line also allows the US to build a coalition for dealing with Iran. This coalition will either pressure Iran to comply with United Nations resolutions and open its facilities to inspectors or provide support for military action should Iran cross the red-line.
Allowing Iran to build nuclear weapons is a threat to the US and the world. Given Iran’s support of terrorist groups like Hezbollah increases the risk these weapons will be used in Israel and her allies, especially the US.
Only by showing Iran the US is serious about this issue, will there be clear resolution.
Jason Tisdale
Captain, US Army
Command and General Staff College, Staff Group 31C
The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.