Secretary of defense Robert Gates told the president last winter that we had no effective strategy for dealing with the Iranian nuclear weapons program. According to the New York Times Secretary Gates thoughtfully made some suggestions, the details of which we do not know. However we do know something about some of the topics he addressed: secret actions that might be taken, how to present in Iran’s strategy to other countries in the region, and what to do if, despite all our efforts, Iran does in fact build and perhaps even deploys nuclear weapons.
It was only logical; Obama had set a late December deadline for an Iranian response to his offer for negotiations and the deadline had passed. Nor should anyone be surprised to discover that the president had not crafted any long term Iran policy. No president has done that since 1979. I am told that Obama in fact had anticipated that his call for a new start in the relationship with Iran would be rejected, and he intended to move on to organize effective international sanctions against Tehran. He hoped that, having demonstrated a genuine willingness to negotiate, it would be easier to gain international support for “tough” measures.
But even sanctions were clearly destined to fail. So the Secretary of Defense felt obliged to deliver his unwanted message: “your hopes have been dashed, and you can’t kick the Iranian can down the road any further. It’s time to fish or cut bait.” I hope that he also said, “in the meantime, our guys are getting killed and maimed by Iranian weapons used by Iranian, Afghan and Arab terrorists who have been trained in Iran.”
Bob Gates’ most recent service demonstrates, once again, that God has a very refined sense of humor. Gates entered the Bush Administration to oversee the retreat from Iraq. Shortly thereafter, W opted for the surge, so Gates oversaw that. In so doing, he developed a proper appreciation and considerable affection for our fighters. I have seen him fighting back tears when speaking of the dead and wounded. He seems now in many ways the opposite of the guy who once talked as if we had lost Iraq and should make a deal with Iran.
Destiny has a funny way of playing pranks on us.
So what now? What else can he do other than setting a wake up call for an ever-sleepy administration? Time is running short.
…Finally the actual market conditions. Iran should have been dealt with long ago ( they are at declared war with us and deliver weapons and personel to kill us).
I stand by my analysis: The USA is absolutely committed to keep the ayatollahs (dictators parading as religious fanatics) in power no matter what.
What do you mean by “The USA”? Are you saying all administrations from both parties agreed on this? Enforced by the military industrial complex, the Free Masons, or the Illuminati?
I am merely an “arm chair” analyst; I analyze actual market conditions without preconceived notions except the notion of objectivity for the purpose of clarity.
My record of getting “it right” is unmatched.
Any objective view of the actions of the executive branch, since 1979, could only conclude “The USA is absolutely committed to keep the ayatollahs (dictators parading as religious fanatics) in power no matter what.
If there is, please G-d, a coup in Iran, it is clear the USA would do everything possible to put down the rebellion to try and keep the current Iranian government.
I understand that the American people, me included, do not/would not support assisting the current Iranian government; but based on USA actions, it is clear that is our Iranian policy; I am convinced the executive branch would send troops to support the current Iranian government if the USA thought it would help keep them in power. I can assure you that it is you who are delusional, not me.
Ultimately, there will be a war over the Iranian nuclear program. The only real questions are whether it will be fought sooner or later, whether the Iranians or someone else will precipitate it, and whether it will be a conventional war or a nuclear/chemical/biological war.
Unfortunately, the time when the Israelis could effectively derail the Iranians with a single conventional air strike (and Israel could probably only mount one, or at best two, conventional air strikes given the logistics involved) with minimal civilian casualties has long since passed.
At this point, only the US has the capability to stop the Iranians with conventional weapons. And, to do so, it would take thousands of sorties, cost billions, and probably involve significant loss of American lives and aircraft, and, of course, the death of thousands of Iranians. Worse, the US window for a successful conventionl war against the Iranian nuclear prgram is closing. And, of course, the Obama regime does not have the will for a fight.
All of this argues that a war will be later rather than sooner: since an Israeli conventional attack can’t work, and a US conventional attack isn’t going to happen, we all have to start thinking about what we’ve always called the unthinkable: a nuclear war over the Iranian program.
Just writing that is frightening. But, what is the alternative? “Living with a nuclear Iran?” Can the Israelis live under the shadow of an Iranian nuclear weapon? Given that the Iranians may well get the bomb under the Obama regime, I think we’ll find out, because I think the Israelis realize that a preemptive nuclear attack on the Iranian nuclear capabilities — which is probably the strategy that would result in the fewest dead Jews and the fewest dead Iranians — would be diplomatically impossible.
So, the Israelis will probably bite their nails, increase defensive preparations, and watch tens of thousands of Israelis with dual citizenship send first their families and then, in some cases, themselves, to countries they believe will be safer.
And, sooner or later, the Iranians will attack: directly or through their proxies, with some form of unconventional weapons – maybe it will be nuclear, maybe CBR. The Americans – if Obama is still in office at that time – will dither, but do little or nothing.
And, then, the balloon will go up – unwilling to see a new Holocaust, or in retaliation if the Iranians have used a nuclear weapon, the Israelis will use their considerable arsenal to remove the Iranian threat. Permanently. And, probably, the Arab threat as well, while they’re at it.
Five years ago, in dealing with the Iranian threat, one could reasonably make an analogy to the inaction of the Western powers to Hitler’s 1936 re-militarization of the Rhineland: the problem could have been nipped in the bud on the cheap, but there would still be time to do it later.
Now, we’re somewhere between Munich and the invasion of Poland — we haven’t stopped the war from happening by our appeasement, we’ve only postponed it. In postponing it, we have only ensured that it will be longer and bloodier than it ever needed to be.
yes, appeasement usually makes things worse in the long run.
i wonder what ol’ JJA would have to say about the Sino-Soviet-Iran Perplex. i wish iran’s relationship with those countries – particularly as suggested by their collective relationships with venezuela, nicaragua, and other apparently strange allies – could be discussed from a higher altitude. it has always seemed to me strange that the public discussion merely refers to russia or china, even though it is these countries’ failure to engage in energy sanctions that has always made “the diplomatic option” a non-starter. (not to mention russia is building iran’s nuke capacity, including missile/warhead design, and china’s massive long-term energy contracts.) presumably someone at state understands this, and yet it the diplomatic strategy was pursued anyway, even after no reasonable being could fail to recognize that the European charade was dead. Now our entire mid-east position on the hook. but the russia/china background, the anti-Western Godfathers, as it were – i’d like to hear what game, in terms of their individual or mutual interests, JJA believes they’re playing via iran.
I wonder what the Russian reaction would be if the Chechen rebels get an Islamic bomb.
http://www.cacianalyst.org/issues/20060419Analyst.pdf
“Although its policies in the Caspian basin have generally been circumspect, Iran is not necessarily a status quo power in this region. It attacked Azerbaijani oil platforms in 2001 and subsequently threatened Kazakh explorations in the Caspian in disputes over who owns that sea’s waters. Since then, in 2002 the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) uncovered intelligence showing that elements of Iran’s clerical army, the Pasdaran, were secretly providing training and logistic support to the al-Qaeda affiliated Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. Iran is also tied to support for radical religious and separatist movements in Azerbaijan, and in 2005 the London Sunday Telegraph reported that Pasdaran had begun secretly training Chechen rebels in sophisticated terror techniques to enable them to carry out more effective attacks against Russian forces.”
Michael – It seems to me that Secretary Gates may face a dilemma.
If Gates believes in 1.) preventing Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons and 2.) that the U.S. must act against powers which support insurgents against our deployed troops, but if Gates also believes that President Obama 1.) will not prevent Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons and 2.) will not act to stop Iran and Syria from serving as safe havens/ supply and training bases for the Iraqi and Afghan insurgents who target our troops, it seems something must give. How long can Gates continue to serve in the cabinet?
I would say that at some point Gates’ sense of honor would require that, if the administration continues on its present course, he would step down and speak publically about his concerns (ideally in time for the 2010 elections).
What do you think the odds are of such an outcome?
There is an old Yiddish saying, “man plans and God laughs”.
Blockade. We are at war after all.
As Ken Pollack wrote, there is no “school solution” to the ‘Persian Puzzle,’ and Mr. Gates, thankfully, does not appear to find such a simplistic solution viable.
Negotiations have failed.
Sanctions eventually will fail.
Then containment will be tried, but it too will eventually fail.
Which leaves either pre-emption or acquiescence as the final U.S. options on Iran’s dual-purpose nuclear ambitions, with the policy goal of ‘deterence’ guiding U.S. strategy.
But if the form of governance in Iran is an evolved theofascism, then deterence itself will eventually fail. Then what, Mr. Secretary?
A question for you Michael. Which military will mutiny first: Iran or the US?
Frankly, the credibility of the politicized inside the Beltway is so low that it makes the Marianas trench look like a scratch.
Dr. Ledeen,
Here’s the question: will the weight of office and responsibility, combined with Iranian provocations, lead Barack Obama through the same sort of processes that Robert Gtaes has gone through? Will Obama, at the last minute and after years of avoiding reality, grow enough of a backbone to take out the Iranian nuclear program?
Even world-class appeasers can reach a tipping-point, when they are forced to face the failure of their appeasement policies. Chamberlain and Daladier began rearmament programs for France and Britain, and it was those two veterans of the Munich Conference who eventually declared war on Germany.
And remember Churchill’s dictum that the Americans can be counted on eventually to do the right thing, after they have tried everything else.
So what is your best assessment on this? Will Obama do what needs to be done, or will he acquiesce in the nuclearization of Iran?
uzi: i wish i knew. all we can do is keep pushing.
Uzi: Obama is pro-Arab Islime. That will not change any more than Hitler would change or Assad et al.
Bruce,
Even a pro-Arab President should be concerned about Iranian nukes. I’m sure all the Arab heads of state with whom he meets are quite emphatic about the need to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
All the major Arab countries, except Syria, are pushing the effort to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Dr. Ronen Bergman, a leading Israeli Middle East expert, writer and talking head, who has written a book on the Iranian bomb, said on TV the other night that in fifty years, when today’s intelligence files are opened to the public, people will be astounded by the intensive cooperation on the Iranian bomb issue between the intelligence agencies of Israel and of Arab states with whom Israel has no diplomatic relations. He usually knows what he is talking about.
The Arabs are threatened by an Iranian nuclear arsenal, and fear becoming vassal states if Iran uses its nuclear forces as an explicit or implied threat. On the one hand, Iran has more religious motivation to nuke Israel than to nuke fellow Muslim states, but on the other hand Israel has a greater deterrent posture than any state in the region not currently believed to possess nukes.
Obama’s being pro-Arab is obvious, but it has nothing to do with the issue of Iran. America itself will be threatened with extortion by a nuclear Iran, once Iran has developed ICBM’s (by 2015 according to a recent report) or sooner if Hugo Chavez signs on for a Venezualan Missile Crisis `a la 1962.
The “Persian Puzzle” looks like a Gordian Knot.
War or acceptance of Persian nuke are our choices, as they have ever been. Hopefully some good was achieved by going through yet another “international community” process despite the obviousness of the outcome. Perhaps the allied intelligence agencies have done more good than not; perhaps Iranian assets have been reduced or neutralized or compromised to a useful extent. It is a shame we did not have a bold commander and assets ready during this past summer’s quasi-uprising; I remain convinced, though in a totally amateur way, that if the people had seen Revolutionary Guard bases and other assets erupting in gigantic fireballs as they faced down the Basij and IRGC in the streets the people could have re-conquered the government there for themselves. Regardless, now we face the prospect of another conflict, in which the opportunities to our enemies will be great. I’m particularly thinking of the report that Russia gave Iraq our order of battle on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Nevertheless, if we girded our loins, and our leaders explained that a vast amount of the difficulties we face through the MIddle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan, are caused by Iran’s present junta, we might be able to suck it up long enough to radically alter the evolutionary direction in our favor. What a pity we have so many personalities colonized by the Left’s idiot conceits that we can’t count on them even to recognize this cartoonishly obvious menace and the lose-lose problems it poses.
Those who were backing up Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the rest of that crowd see a very different
crowd that frankly are not to be trusted.
Take a look at this, http://ezralevant.com/2010/04/protecting-canada-from-obama.html especially the comments.
I am not seeking to make trouble by asking which military will mutiny first, for either the US military is riddled with political correctness to such an extent that anything which places the chief deformed soul in the Oval Office in a poor light, whatever makes BHO look
bad is viewed as worse than racism.
For, it is one thing to mindlessly follow orders, it is
something else to refuse illegal orders. Take a look at
the Tom Clancy novel where the protagonist flew down to
Columbia to rescue a barely legal strike force team down
there.
Thanks to the perfidy riddled throughout the stagnant swamp, a new book has to be written about the world and
frankly the diminished positive contribution (at best) to global politics from the US.
For how the US viewed the Europeans as being culturally dead is how the US is viewed today by those who were friends of the US.
In the past 50 years have sanctions resulted in any significant change in posture by either Cuba or North Korea?
Sanctions do not work and are only a mechanism of allowing political entities to appear to be doing something while generating a tolerable level of risk or expense for themselves. They are a passive-aggressive response in that the goal is to harm someone by not doing something (buying their products or shipping goods to them).