My friend Michael is testifying today in front of the House International Relations Committee. The New York Sun has read the testimony in advance and has an editorial. I am publishing the editorial in its entirety although the Sun is behind a subscription firewall. I doubt they will be too upset.
Ledeen and Hyde
Our friend and an occasional contributor to these pages, Michael Ledeen of the American Enterprise Institute, is scheduled to testify in Washington this morning before the House International Relations Committee that is chaired by Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois. His prepared testimony, available this morning on our Web site at nysun.com, is one of the clearest and most persuasive statements we have read laying out both the threat posed by Iran and what America should do about it.
Among the most chilling sentences in Ledeen testimony: “once Iran manages to put nuclear warheads on their intermediate range missiles, they might even be able to direct them against American territory from one or more of the Latin American countries with which the mullahs are establishing strategic alliances. The mullahs make no secret of their strategy; just a couple of weeks ago, when the leader of Hamas was received in honor in Tehran, a photograph of the event was released, in which there was a colorful poster of President Ahmadi-Nezhad and Supreme Leader Khamenei along with Castro, Morales and Chavez. The mullahs would be pleased to nuke Israel, and they would be thrilled to kill millions of Americans.”
Mr. Ledeen goes on to say that the Iranians are killing Americans even today even without nuclear weapons, through support for terrorist suicide bombers worldwide and improvised explosive devices in Iraq. What to do? Mr. Ledeen suggests seizing the overseas assets of Iranian leaders and imposing a travel ban on them while openly embracing support for nonviolent regime change in Tehran. That means providing a strike fund for workers; servers, laptops, satellite and cellphones and phone cards for dissidents; and broadcasting into Iran interviews with experts on nonviolent revolution. All points worth keeping in mind as Congress considers the Iran Freedom Support Act.
Leeden’s problem, and the problem of everyone else who tried to convince us in 2002 and 2003 that Saadam Hussein was a mortal threat to America, was eloquently described 2500 years ago:
http://www.storyarts.org/library/aesops/stories/boy.html
I copied & pasted the entire text of Dr. Ledeen’s testimony at my blog, if anyone wants to read it.
Just for the heck of it, Markus
Doesn’t the allusion lose some luster when it’s the wolf who is crying wolf?
Markus, for the record Ledeen did not support a military invasion of Iraq in 2002/2003, though he might as well have given that he’s continually mentioned as having done so. He didn’t consider Iraq a “mortal threat” – he wanted to address Iran then, and then as now he doesn’t support amilitary invasion against Iran either.
Fausta, thanks for posting the entire of Ledeen’s testimony.
No, the argument with Saddam, was that we couldn’t let him become a “mortal threat” to the US. That he posed a growing and gathering threat to us and our interests.
Also Iran does not need to get cozy with South American dictators to launch missles at us. They have their own submarines to do this.
Now, I’m certain of our undersea dominance, but are you willing to bet the farm that we will always be able to track every Iranian sub.
Missle defence is looking pretty important in light of this.
But, in the end, it isn’t the nukes, or the subs, or the special forces that Iran has aquired that makes them a threat. It is, in the end, the regime which poses the threat.
Keith Indy — Iraq didn’t pose a “growing and gathering threat to us and our interests” in 2002. But it certainly does in 2006.
Peter G. — I’ll take your word for it on Ledeen.
Regarding everyone else who cried wolf on Iraq three and a half years ago, I agreed with those who insisted that the Administration really thought Saadam had WMD’s. Then I read this article, in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, which leads me to believe that not only did they not know one way or the other, they also didn’t give a damn:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html
Keith_Indy:
I can’t find any evidence online that the Iranians have missile-launching subs. They’ve bought kilo-class diesel-electrics from the Russians, but those are for sea-lane defense. The threat they pose is to oil shipments. In the event of a confrontation with the US (and our 60 years of experience at anti-submarine warfare) their expected lifespan is less than that of a mayfly.
I agree, however, that it’s the regime that is the source of the threat.
I do agree that their chances of hitting our shores from their subs is very, very low.
But low is not none, and until the regime is non-threatening, the risk needs to be added to the equation.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/03/irans_new_sub.php
Dear Goddess.
Why do people constantly live in the past. Missle Defense? Launch out of Cuba? Come on… this is the 21st century, Hell even back in the 80′s the Russians had realized the foolishness of that scenario. If Castro lets someone launch a nuke from Cuba… he’s well aware that we would retaliate. Care to wonder what Cuba would look like after that?
If Iran gains access to nuclear materials, I think it far more likely they will follow the Russian idea of Suitcase nukes (or something similar). There’s no longer any need to launch a missle, in fact, if the goal is actually destruction, then launching a missle would seem a bad idea, since we would know ahead of time and possibly (if the damnable missle defense system ever actually worked) stop it. However, a small tactical nuke (based on existing technology), in a simple briefcase would be enough to ruin any of our major cities without notice.
I think its funny though that its the Mullahs who are befriending Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez. These men were democratically elected and while Chavez’s last election may have had questions (as did ours), Morales was democratically elected in a completely fair election. However, since he feels that his nation would benefit from a different economical model, the US has ignored him and left him free for the Mullahs to buddy up with.
We really need to figure out who our enemies are… the people that want to have a socialist government in their own nation, or the people that want to KILL us.
Interesting that Paul Pillars conclusion didn’t seem to be shared by the committees who looked into it…
And of course, the boy who cried wolf, knew there wasn’t a wolf. So the fable really does fail in that regards.
Markus–do you dispute the Bush Administration’s claim that Iran seeks nuclear weapons? And would you agree that a nuclear-armed Iran meets any sane person’s definition of “wolf”?
the people that want to have a socialist government in their own nation, or the people that want to KILL us.
*****
Of course, the people who want to kill us in Iran, don’t include the majority of the people in Iran…
So, the question, as always, is what do you do about it?
—not only did they not know one way or the other, they also didn’t give a damn
Markus–
The same thing can be said about the people who hurl accusations at the Bush Administration for anything they do or don’t do. Its merely a tactic to justify a hidden agenda. Why the double standard? Whatever happened to moral equivalence?
And then again, perhaps I’m wrong, and maybe you do consider BOTH the current administration AND their not so loyal opposition to be a bunch of lying hypocrites. In that case we might be able to agree on something.
So, the question, as always, is what do you do about it?
Well, I for one would like to see us befriend any nation that wasn’t actively seeking ways to blow us up. Venezuela doesn’t seem to be seeking Nuclear power and Hugo Chavez seems more pissed off at the attitude of the State Dept and the Administration than at the decadence of Western Civilization. Evo Morales in Bolivia may want to allow the indigenous people of his nation to continue to grow Coca and use the leaves as they have for thousands of years, but he’s not really said anything about us being the Great Satan.
If we applied the basic principles handed to us by the earliest politicans, I think we would have a much greater level of positive influence and much less issue with concerns about what Iran might do in South America.
tcobb,
BOTH the current administration AND their not so loyal opposition to be a bunch of lying hypocrites
Hallelujah! Preach the truth Brother, because one way or the other… whomever is in power seems intent on screwing us in some fashion.
dclydew
while Chavez’s last election may have had questions (as did ours)
Not quite the same.
Even the NYT-sponsored study showed that Bush won in 2000. In the 2004 election, Bush won by a clear majority, 51%, with a large voter turnout.
By contrast, the 2004 Venezuelan recall referendum results were endorsed by “observers” who hadn’t actually observed the election results. The 2005 congressional election was boycotted by the oposition parties, with only 25% of registered voters participating, even when allegedly public workers had been pressured to vote.
Not the same thing at all.
Fausta,
Indeed, which is why the main focus of my post was Bolivia. Try to stick with the meat of the discussion here.
ddclydew: Maybe you should try to stick to facts, rather than indulging in drive-by smears (which you then apparently expect to go unanswered).
great commentary
from Belmont Club/Wretchard
regarding Robert Kaplan’s article in the Atlantic, “The Coming Normalcy” (subscription req’d) where Kaplan discusses his views on “managing Anarchy”(failed & rougue states,terrorism,WMD proliferation,etc.):
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
“A place like many others” | Belmont Club
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/03/place-like-many-others.html
quote from Wretchard:
“Countries like Pakistan, Syria, Iraq and Iran
are defended less by frontier fortifications
than by the sheer toxicity of their societies.”
one does wonder
what their immigration stats are like.
Ed, Keith- In the fable, the boy was TELLING THE TRUTH the last time he cried wolf.
Iran, likewise, is a wolf. If they develop nuclear weapons, it’s not inevitably the end of the world, but we do need to do everything we can to prevent it from happening. Including offering to normalize relations under certain conditions. See the current Hitchens article in Slate that I referenced yesterday.
tcobb — I almost never read the comments on leftist blogs, and I seldom have substantive interactions with hardcore Bush haters. From what I observe, at their worst they are often paranoid and delusional (i.e. Bush knew about 9/11 ahead of time, and killed Wellstone, and the like). I don’t see them as liars.
I agree with dclydew,the subject here is Bolivia,albeit spelled I R A N.
marcus – no, the fable doesn’t fit because in Saddams case, he was a wolf. Albiet temporarily decked out with a collar, and chain, hooked to the French, Germans and Russians, and in an invisible “box”. The wolf in this case also had a history of behaving like a wolf, trying to hide his behaving like a wolf, and trying to deceive everyone that he wasn’t a wolf.
Let’s get back to the issue of what do to about Iran. As Leeden points out, there are three primary strategies that can be pursued: 1) sanctions, 2) military intervention or 3) revolution. Leeden opts for revolution.
As I see it, the revolution option only works if the threat of military intervention to help the revolutionaries is credible. I suspect that the 70% of Iranians that Leeden believes are disaffected and therefore are potential revolutionaries will remember how we (the US) urged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. They did with the belief that America would be there to help them. In the end, they were on their own. I think that the revolutionary option, while noble and idealistic, is improbable given the sadistic nature of the regime and skepticism about US resolve. Just listen to the debate here.
I do agree that we are in a situation where we must kill them before they kill us situation.
We now have evidence that Iran is send IEDs into Iraq and those IEDs are killing our troops. The Iranians are bragging that Euros have been duped regarding nuclear pursuits.
We should train our satellites on Iran to gather military intelligence, seek to get on the ground intelligence regarding the locations of atomic “research” and warn the Iranians who live near atomic and military facilities to leave the area.
The travel ban and seizure of assets with the announcement that they will be returned to the Iranian prople at the right time are also good ideas.
We should, hopefully with a coalition, take out all Iranian air defenses, reduce to ashes all suspected atomic facilities and let a few stray smart bombs fall on the homes, offices and facilities where the mullahs reside to thin out the leadership. Maybe then the revolution will happen.
We owe it to our kids to stop this now before it gets worse. Also remember the Islamic doctrines of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Har.
What do you think we should do about Iran?
Barrett,
Spontaneous revolution in Iran is Ledeen’s pipe dream. Are 70% of the people there disaffected in one way or the other? I’m sure. Likewise, a good 60% of America’s electorate believes this country is on the “wrong path”. Doesn’t mean the whiff of revolution is wafting through the streets of Berkeley.
The British tried the same option–foment local revolution without any serious commitment of British troops– with Napoleon several times and it always failed. The opposition is always comprised of too many disparate types of disaffected fools to ever make such a quixotic enterprise succeed. What a revolution requires is a) a weak ancien regime (not present here), together with b) a fanatic like Lenin or Khomeini to lead it (not present here). Bourgeois buffoons will talk the talk and sign the petitions but at the end of the day they’ll want to get back in their Volvos and drive home to their homesteads in LA.
As for attacking Iran “selectively”, well, that’s somebody else’s pipe dream. You don’t fight wars with major opponents “selectively”. They tend not to see any reason why they should not fight back. They “get a vote”. They tend not to agree with the artificial boundaries to the conflict which you have set up. The great American armchair fantasy is that we’ll sit back in safety here and push a few buttons and cause our enemies to go away in a puff of smoke. No muss no fuss. Osama was right: it’s cowardly and it’s weak.
We can fight a war with Iran if that’s what the American People want, though I don’t think they do. But if we do go to war, be prepared to watch your son die in a lousy trench somewhere you’ve never heard of or for your local city to go poof. I don’t mind war-mongers calling for war. I just ask for honesty in the matter. If you think it’s important for thousands, possibly millions of Americans to die to make the world safe for China, just say so.
From markus:
In what way, precisely, is Iraq more of a threat to us and our interests now that in 2002?
Granting that the threat from WMDs was overblown (which, if the Syrian regime ever collapses, may prove to be generous on my part) we still had an openly hostile, totalitarian regime sitting in the middle of the most strategically important region of the world. All the global incentives were to weaken our constraints on a country that had started two wars of agression (for control of oil fields, naturally) over the course of 20 years. The dictator’s even-more-sadistic sons were being groomed to take over.
Iran was going to get nuclear as soon as possible regardless of what happened in Iraq. Question: if we do have to strike Iran militarily, would we be better able to do so with a presence in Iraq or without?
Iraq is more work now than before, and it’s definitely causing us more pain now than before, but as far as threats go, I humbly submit we’re safer now than we were in 2002.
You think Frist is a social conservative and Ledeen is not? Ledeen is most assuredly a social/economic/foreign policy conservative.
Well Mark, to answer your question, “if we do have to strike Iran militarily, would we be better able to do so with a presence in Iraq or without?”
Without. Why? Because Iraq is sucking up all the discretionary troops we have and then some. In addition, Iraq demontstrates three things to Iran, 1. We are willing to invade axis of evil nations 2. Unless they have nukes (N. Korea) 3. We cannot keep effective control once we invade. So Iran uses the inavsion of Iraq both as inspiration and cover to take steps on its nuclear program. We can’t menace Iran if we’re occupied in Iraq.
We can’t really meanace Iran militarily anyway, it being three times the size of Iraq and all. We’d need every soldier, reserve soldier, retired soldier, boy scout and girl scount in the country to try and occupy Iran and it still wouldn’t work. Not even the looniest hawk is suggesting that. Bombing Iran would accomplish very little except to waste any goodwill we may have left with the Iranian people.
I also think Ledeen is deluding himself if he thinks we can turn Iranian dissatisfaction with their government into a revolution, expecially an overtly U.S. backed revolution. I read a fine analogy once in my internet wanderings. Just because the old folks wouldn’t let the kids in Footloose dance doesn’t mean they’d support a Soviet invasion of Nebraska. I might add, nor would they support a revolution. Just because one disagrees with their government doesn’t mean they want to invite foreign-backed revolutionaries in and have a war about it.
Mark Poling — Saadam and his sons posed no threat to anyone but their long-suffering subjects. Though oil-for-food graft was allowing them to purchase new mansions and Cuban cigars and nice suits and archaic military hardware that would allow the Republican Guards to put up a big fight against the Polish Army, the regime was completely in a box. And regarding any future threat, Saadam had shown himself to be a rational actor in the Persian Gulf War, when he chose NOT to turn the scuds he sent to Israel into WMD’s by outfitting them with the chemicals that he had, even though doing so would have provoked an Israeli response, and an Arab counterattack on his behalf.
In contrast, Iraq today is a safe haven and training ground for Al-Qaeda and other anti-American terrorists, Iraqis are KILLING AMERICANS there almost every day, and we are working to legitimize and empower a PRO-IRANIAN government. All this in addition to the points that Shochu John raises.
SJ:
You’re right Ledeen is delusional in regard to fomenting a revolution. (And it is exactly for the reasons you state.)
Unfortunately, he is not delusional about the nature of Iran’s current regime.
Markus – Don’t be a frog in a pot of water brought slowly to a boil! :–)
Roger,
I don’t think this so much a case of the boy crying wolf but more of a game of Texas Hold’em with a Rove trump card being held close to the vest.
Our principle seer has been brain dead for a number of years. The CIA is so preoccupied with open warfare with the CINC to CYA, they’re to blind to see the forest for the trees.
A piece at The American Thinker went so far as to say the CIA was co-opted by a high level French intel disinformation campaign to cover the French fingerprints in Turkey’s decision not to allow us to use their airspace and to launch the IV ID from the north into Iraq, the Niger yellowcake story the bait with the Plame/Wilson Affair [French mining interest control uranium mining in Niger], and that the French were on the top of the food chain of Saddam’s Oil for Food Scandal followed in order by the Russian and the Chinese. Hmmm? All veto votes on the UN Sec Council.
Kobayashi Maru (KBT) and Rocket’s Brain Trust (RBT) have been cross-posting on these topics.
Here’s some excerpts:
IRAQ – God Lied, People Died?
There is an excellent discussion underway at Winds of Change in a thread by Armed Liberal:
markus at March 9, 2006 07:33 AM: “…Iraq today is a safe haven and training ground for
Al-Qaeda…” This gives a whole new meaning to the term safe haven, Marcus.
Just the thought of what these crazy mulahs could do completely bums me out.
Don’t get me wrong,because I am not psyhic,but my gut feeling,even before Chriac said France would use HER nuclear option,is that if you have not already seen Notre Dame cathedral,you are never going to get the chance.
Iran is not going to do a “test” on Israel or the US.
The mullahs are crazy,but to do so before they believe they are ready to wipe Israel off of the map,or to cause America great harm and pain,would of necessity put them at a losing disadvantage.But,they are going to make a statement.
They will go for a target that they feel will not instantaniously get them nuked in return,in numbers that they are sure they could not match.
In order to get away with their “test” without an immediate reaction, they will have to cause great confusion world wide.
Paris is, as I am sure no one here will disagree, more secular than either the US or Israel,and therefore more “evil” in their eyes(not the Great Satan maybe,but definately more degenerated!). Even if Paris and France’s “glory days” are behind her,her place in history gives her a special place in Western hearts and minds. The mullahs probably don’t even consider her a 3rd rate power however. Perfect target!
In their minds,they feel they will get away with their test,and are given time to better develop their technology.
They won’t see the US, or Israel for that matter,of being willing,or able to immediately retaliate FOR France.
Now like I said this is just a gut feeling I have had for quite a while. But,if you can follow my logic in picking someplace that is not as capable of responding as the US or Israel,and some place that the mullahs feel will not draw the immediate fire of other countries down upon them,yet make their statement of removing the evil of the West,and some place that they could probably target fairly easily,Paris is their most logical choice.
Of course,if they think this is a game of poker,and the US and Israel are bluffing,they will probably find out that they are wrong.
“We can’t really meanace Iran militarily anyway, it being three times the size of Iraq and all. We’d need every soldier, reserve soldier, retired soldier, boy scout and girl scount in the country to try and occupy Iran and it still wouldn’t work.”
You’re assuming that a war against Iran would be fought the same way as was the war against Saddam. As the very different strategies in Afghanistan and Iraq should show, we no longer have a one-size-fits-all approach to military action.
The “kinder, gentler” approach to Iraq was always a gamble, and one that is still in play. But the bottom line is we left as much of the country intact as we could, in the hopes that it would turn into a model for the rest of the Middle East. We have troops there not to suppress a population, but to protect it.
Compare and contrast Baghdad today with Berlin or Tokyo after WWII.
If Iran “hurts” us, how many days do you think it would take the USAF to turn Tehran into a parking lot?
If we need to take out discrete hardenened military targets, how long do you think it would take the rangers to get in, kill everything that moves, blow stuff up, and get out?
Or, to be short, Mr. Niceguy is an option, not a requirement.
As to Saddam being no threat to anyone but his own people:
A: So a genocidal regime is okay as long as they don’t actually take it across the border?
B: You’re willing to trust a genocidal regime with vast capital resources not to cross its border? (Never mind the constant stream of threatening rhetoric from said regime…)
C: So, as long as Israel is around to cowe the “rational actors” we were safe? What if that “rational actor” decides striking Israel would be stupid (because Israel is willing to back up its threats) but striking the US is not (because the United States is a toothless tiger)? Effectively, that was bin Laden’s mistake, and it was one we only encouraged through the 70′s, 80′s, and 80′s. Letting “rational actors” make threats without consequence as long as they don’t do anything about it ivites the same mistake again.
There are good strategic criticisms of the Bush Doctrine. The idea that Iraq didn’t pose a real threat to our interests isn’t one of them.
If you want to criticise the gamble in the Iraq Project, by all means do so; but if we were going to act against Iraq (and I think it was inevitable) then the gamble we made was the moral one.
If you want to gamble that folks like Saddam (and the current Iranian leadership) will remain rational actors doesn’t strike me as either moral or intelligent.
Venezuela doesn’t seem to be seeking Nuclear power
Oh yes, it is.
Mark Poling –
“So a genocidal regime is okay as long as they don’t actually take it across the border?”
As you know I never said that. What I have a problem with is humanitarian intervention when the costs are enormous and the benefits are extremely uncertain. Bet you do, too.
For instance, I would strongly oppose humanitarian intervention against the monstrous regimes in China and North Korea. Overthrowing Hussein was a snap, occupying the “nation” and leaving it with something better is proving to be, perhaps, impossible.
“You’re willing to trust a genocidal regime with vast capital resources not to cross its border?”
I’m not willing to trust anyone. We need to deter potential aggression by making it clear — as we did in Operation Desert Storm — that an invasion of any sovereign nation of vital strategic importance will be turned back militarily.
“What if that “rational actor” decides striking the US is not [stupid] (because the United States is a toothless tiger)?”
I think the fact that the Reagan administration repeatedly turned a blind eye to Iraqi atrocities in the 1980′s played a big role in the Iraqi calculation that it could attack Kuwait without provoking a U.S. military response. But Operation Desert Storm disabused Hussein of that notion PDQ. By the way, did he ever threaten to attack the United States? (Something that Laurie Mylroie heard him say on one of her acid trips DOES NOT count.)
Jeez, the historical blindness is amazing.
If you talk about the ’80s you have to put EVERYTHING in the context of the Cold War. If you don’t do that you’re a fool. EVERYTHING else in foreign affairs got hind tit then. It’s only been since the fall of the wall that anything else was even remotely important.
And this Saddam was no threat crap….anyone who believes that really needs to go see the view from the “Window on the World” sippiing a nice Chianti. Even if he didn’t have large stockpiles of weapons ready and raring to go (and I don’t mean to Syria) as every country in the world believed, he did have the programs in place. Read the Duelfer report, read the Senate ivestigation. There were countless contacts with all sorts of terrorists. Now, you can sit there with a straight face and tell me that you trusted Saddam Hussein not to let Osama or Zarqawi or Hamas or Hesbollah or…….borrow a WMD or two. After all he would have plausible deniability like crazy and lots of bought and paid for stooges in Europe and Russia.
AlanC — given that both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. sided with Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war, I’m not sure how our support was a function of larger Cold War strategy. Seems like it had a lot more to do with the fallout from the hostage takeover.
Regarding Hussein/WMD/Al-Qaeda, political theorist Joe Strummer said it best: “cut the crap”
from Pillar’s Foreign Affairs article:
“…the Bush administration was quite right: its perception of Saddam’s weapons capacities was shared by the Clinton administration, congressional Democrats, and most other Western governments and intelligence services. But in making this defense, the White House also inadvertently pointed out the real problem: intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs did not drive its decision to go to war. A view broadly held in the United States and even more so overseas was that deterrence of Iraq was working, that Saddam was being kept “in his box,” and that the best way to deal with the weapons problem was through an aggressive inspections program to supplement the sanctions already in place. That the administration arrived at so different a policy solution indicates that its decision to topple Saddam was driven by other factors — namely, the desire to shake up the sclerotic power structures of the Middle East and hasten the spread of more liberal politics and economics in the region.”