Posted on 01/18/2006 6:08:43 AM PST by RKV
Bit by bit we are getting to the inevitable showdown with Iran. This administration, like every other Western government, has hoped against hope that it would not come to this. President George W. Bush, for reasons good and bad, threw in with the Europeans' phony-negotiation scheme, even though he knew it would fail. Like the others, he hoped that revolution would erupt, and that decisive action on our part would not be necessary. Like the others, he preferred not to face the hard fact that revolutions rarely succeed without external support. Had Ronald Reagan been around, he would have told W. that the democratic revolution that ended the Cold War only finally succeeded when the United States supported it.
The failure to craft an effective Iran policy has plagued this administration, and indeed the entire American political class, for five long years. Calls of "faster, please" were dismissed, in large part because they failed to resonate in the policy community, aside from a few brave souls in Congress (Jon Kyl, John Cornyn, Rick Santorum, Sam Brownback, Illeana Ros-Lehtinen come to mind. No thanks to the nominal leaders, Henry Hyde and Richard Lugar, both in full denial, in lockstep with Foggy Bottom and Langley).
Wishful thinking still dominates global "leadership." The pathetic Jack Straw intones, "I don't think we should rush our fences here. There are plenty of examples where a matter is referred to the Security Council and the Security Council takes action and that action is followed without sanction." And he wistfully adds: "the fact that Iran is so concerned not to see it referred to the Security Council underlines the strength of that body."
This, at a moment when Iran, which either possesses or will soon have atomic bombs and excellent intermediate-range ballistic missiles, scoffs at the Security Council, threatens to drive oil prices through $100 per barrel, and chants that the West needs Iran more than Iran needs the West. Meanwhile, Secretary Rice, trying to put a brave face on a potentially catastrophic policy failure, happily claims that Iran "is isolating itself" in the world community.
But it is not so. Iran has powerful defenders and apologists (Russia, China, and often Saudi Arabia), and, far from isolating itself, Iran's ability to intimidate her neighbors is growing relentlessly. Just a few days ago, when Iraqi patrol boats attempted to stop Iranian oil smugglers, Iranian naval vessels opened fire, killing several Iraqi sailors and enabling the smugglers to proceed. Such events do not register against the din of empty words directed at our feckless demands that Iran cease arming herself.
We now hear cries for violent action from those once aptly characterized by Senator Henry Jackson as "born-again hawks," Democrats and Republicans suddenly willing to talk tough about sanctions and military strikes against Iran. This is only to be expected. Having failed to pursue serious policies in the past, we are left with distasteful options today, and the pundits' and solons' chest pounding shows it. They do not expect the "hard options" to be embraced; this is posturing to the crowd, this is political positioning of the most cynical sort.
You want sanctions? When have sanctions ever "worked" against hostile countries? Did they bring Saddam to heel? With one exception (Reagan's embargo of military technology against the Soviet Empire), they have only altered the behavior of regimes that wanted to be part of our world, countries like South Africa and Chile. For the rest, sanctions cut primarily against the oppressed peoples of our tyrannical enemies, and the tyrants could care less. Sanctions, even if you accept the fantasy that the West en bloc accepts them and enforces them, would do more harm than good. We should want to help the Iranian people, who are overwhelmingly pro-American, and bring down the mullahcracy, which is our outspoken, fanatical, and bloodthirsty enemy. No sanctions.
You want to bomb the nuclear facilities? Do you really believe that our intelligence community is capable of identifying them? The same crowd that did all that yeoman work on Saddam's Iraq? The CIA that once received accurate information on Iranian schemes in Afghanistan, only to walk away from the sources that provided it? The CIA that, three times in the past 15 years or so, seems to have had its entire "network" inside Iran rolled up by the mullahs? And even if you believe that we have good information about the nuclear sites, are you prepared to deal with the political consequences, in Iran and throughout the region? Do we even know, with any degree of reliability, what those are? Look at the problems we now face in Pakistan, after a handful of innocents were killed in an assault against a presumed terrorist gathering. Then imagine, if you can, the problems following hundreds, or thousands of innocents killed in raids inside Iran. Are you prepared for that?
These are the questions that define our current plight. Having kicked the Iranian can down the road for many years, having failed to purge the intelligence community the morning after 9/11, and having failed to support democratic revolution in Iran and Syria, we are between various hard and alarmingly sharp rocks.
Worse yet, the current panicky rhetoric is yet one more distraction from the real problems, one more flight from the hard facts. For the central problem represented by the Islamic republic of Iran is terror, not technology. Iran is, and has been for decades, the driving engine of the terror war against us. Iran actively seeks our destruction, above all across her eastern and western borders, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Listen to the wise words of "Mohammed" at Iraq The Model:
I think that now it seems that the greatest danger facing Iraq is not al-Qaeda because rejecting this organization by the Iraqi people was just a matter of time; the greatest danger right now is the possible interference of the neighbors in Iraq's internal affairs to destabilize the country and impede the political process in the effort to escape the pressure applied by the international community on those neighbors...
Afghanistan's President Karzai has made similar remarks. Iraqis and Afghans know that the mullahs' greatest nightmare is free, stable countries on the doorstep to Tehran, because, far more than military attack from abroad, the schemers and torturers fear revolution, which is part of the national DNA. There were three political revolutions in Iran in the last century, and another one is simmering today. There is a lot of fighting going on right now in the Arab regions, just across from southern Iraq. And interestingly enough, the regime is not using regular forces to quell the demonstrations, or even the shock troopers of the Revolutionary Guards, or even the fanatical Basiji. Instead, the mullahs have called in the killers from the Lebanese Hezbollah, and from the Badr Brigades in Iraq. True to its essence, the regime is unleashing its terrorists against the demonstrators. It is reminiscent of the Chinese response to the uprising in Tiananmen Square, when Beijing called in soldiers from remote regions instead of relying on the local rank and rile. Both are signs of unease, and additional confirmation that tyrants fear their own people above all others.
The mullahs know it, but the West seems not to. Our failure to support revolution in Iran is already a terrible embarrassment, and risks becoming an enormous catastrophe. Almost everyone who writes about the chances for revolution takes it for granted that it would take a long time to come to fruition. Why must that be so? The revolutions in countries like Georgia and the Ukraine seem to have erupted in an historical nanosecond. Nobody foresaw them, everyone was surprised. Who imagined the overnight success of the Lebanese people? How long did that take? The entire region is awash with revolutionary sentiment, and nowhere more than Iran. Why assume — because no one can possibly "know" such things — that it would take a long time?
And even if you believe that revolution cannot possibly succeed before the successful completion of the mullahs' nuclear project, is that a reason to abandon the policy altogether? On the contrary, it seems self-evident that it would be even more urgent to support revolution in a nuclear Iran than earlier, doesn't it? So why not start now? The Iranian people may be ready. We won't know until we try.
On the other hand, we do know what will happen if we continue to dither, if we continue to act as if the United Nations could possibly have a decisive effect, and if we continue to put up with the sly appeasement of Iran that is practiced by the spent forces of Europe. Terror against our troops and our friends will increase; nuclear blackmail will become a commonplace in the Middle East; the fanatics of Tehran may very well fulfill their promise to wipe Israel from the map.
Is that better than supporting democratic revolutionaries? Such a program has an additional benefit, one that is not subject to the doubts and uncertainties that attend the others: It is the right thing to do, and it would be even if Iran had no nuclear program, and was not the world's leading terrorist supporter. It is part and parcel of our national mission, and it is the ultimate example of doing well by doing good.
How about it?
Looks like confrontation is inevitable. The President is in the process of exhausting the diplomatic route. After that it's gloves off, and I pray it's not too late!
There may be only bad alternatives, and worse alternatives. Either the military option, which will cause an international backlash and, much more importantly, may not get all the hardened secret underground sites. Or dealing with a nuclear Iran - which probably only means military conflict as well, only against a stronger enemy and not on our terms.
Supporting native freedom fighters worked for the US in Central America, and to me seems like an excellent idea. But I agree, it's little more than a platitude without details, and implementation.
Iran, North Korea, and Taiwan are the three "hot" situations I fear the most.
It'd be great if Bolton could stand up and request fast-forwarding of the tape, so to speak:
"First, let's all express concern, then have the Iranian representatives tell us to stuff it. Next, we can express grave reservations, and the Iranians can tell us to get bent. After that, we can warn of dire consequences - and the Iranians can laugh and fart in our general directions. Then, we can finally throw up our hands and take up the urgent issue of frog croakings due to Global Warming. Any objections? - because..uhh...we need to get started right away, I have a lunch appointment."
Looks to me like the target for their first nuke is the oil loading facilities in Saudi Arabia, particularly if combined with a dirty bomb to slow down rebuilding.
They achieve three objectives with this move: a western economic panic, a split in the west between appeasers and defenders, and an increase in their own oil profits.
Heard some Aussie comentator on the radio Monday night, a supposed expert on Iran, who said it is not inconceivable that the Israelis would launch a preemptive nuclear strike against the Iranian facilities, if it is determined that conventional weapons won't do the job. Things could get very interesting.
Talk of war right now is not only premature - it is foolish.
An excellent summation of the situation. Although I agree - Leeden's complaints that we haven't started a revolution in Iran don't include how exactly we should go about doing that. As far as I know we may already be trying. The fact is, we can't do it for them - the Iranians have to do it themselves.
The paradox of the Iranian problem is that there seems to be widespread general support for their nuclear program amongst the Iranian public - it's tied to nationalism and ideas of progress - and if we impose sanctions or go after it militarily, then we're likely to alienate large numbers of the people we need to rise up. A military strike could just rally the public around Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, leaving them in an even stronger position than they are now. This could even be the reason for Ahmadinejad's ravings - maybe he needs the Great Satan as the common enemy to shunt the reformists and democrats into irrelevance.
That's why I'm skeptical of criticisms of the administration being "too soft" on Iran. They know how delicate this is. There are no simple options on Iran.
Whether we talk of war or not, the mullahs are talking about war against us. Personally, I suggest we increase the strength of our armed forces - both in manpower and equipment.
Sad and funny, but true.
I think we do have some time on this - they are several years from building a nuke from what I read. We have a semi-massive force in the neighboring country. Let the mad mullahs flap their gums for a while, make threats, while we come up with some ingenious plan for pushing their countrymen against the mullahs. My preference is several clandestine assassins going in and dropping six or seven heavies at the exact time, in different locations, then simultaneously getting the democracy folks to riot and take over the city halls and federal buildings.
After that, there's no need to keep rattling the sabre. We're letting them thrive on the attention, and we shouldn't.
We should have been aggressively supporting insurgents inside Iran, just as they support insurgents all over the world. The Iranian regime is far weaker than Saddam's ever was, and the country is ripe for revolution. The fear of a foreign threat is the only thing that could possibly give their government more life, and that's exactly what we're providing.
Step one should be a strong pro-democracy movement support among the young and educated classes, along with support for Sunni extremists to fight against the Shi'ite majority.
Step two should be planning for senior leadership decapitation strikes. Their government is an unpopular group of aging and ideologically isolated theocrats. A 'surgical strike' against them (and their foreign thugs) would leave the country without guidance in a way that wasn't the case in Iraq.
Internal pressure is the way to defeat Iran, and we can provide the push of external pressure if need be. What we should not be doing is engaging in threats or embargoes that will simply drive the average Iranian to support his government out of fear of us.
I’d say “arm-chair” quarterbacking implies Ledeen thinks he has all the answers. He’s got more than a few but I believe he realizes solving the Iran problem is going to be a big effort and a team effort of which he is an important member. From his “arm chair” he knows that only a few dissidents are going to meet him there yet he's still asking the U.S. government meet Iranian dissidents more than half way. This makes him an essential member of the team, not an “arm chair quarterback”.
In this effort, known details are important but so are unknowns. Totalitarian regimes like Iran’s imprison, torture and execute dissidents so great care should be taken when approaching and or promoting any Iranian dissident. The safe bet in my opinion is to rally behind a mutually beneficial model for the future of Iran. The more detailed the model the dissidents have come up with, the more Americans have to work with in terms of refining and supporting the model. There are ways to help create that model I'll cover later. What is important to note is that it is not essential that the political splits, inherent in any Diaspora community and particularly prominent in the Iranian Diaspora, come together before the U.S. lends a hand to their effort to bring about change. U.S. support should be tied directly to the production of material that facilitates positive change in Iran. In fact the current DOS logic that the political splits in the Iranian opposition movements is a bad thing, is wrong. Competent debate between opponents of the Iranian regime will indeed be fuel for the engine that produces the material to facilitate positive change in Iran. The Civil Rights Movement here in the United States operated this way. The factions challenged one another and gave restive people essential choices that represented an unofficial democracy outside of the United States Government but within the Civil Rights Movement. It is in this kind of environment where ideas can develop, be challenged and blossom or die natural deaths. But the first step is to have faith in democratic diplomacy with Iranians, including and most importantly Iranian opposition leaders. The diplomatic ball is in Iranian official’s court right now because Iranian officials know exactly what they have to do to normalize relations with the United States yet they refuse to do it. Iranian opposition groups are not so lucky. They do not know what they have to do to take their opposition to tyranny to the next level, where it might find success.
The actions I recommend are not detailed per say but if carried out would provide an environment in which the important details could be created. I recommend the U.S. Congress form a new committee or employ an existing one to: 1. Overtly approach all Iranian opposition groups and challenge them to produce their grievances, platform and methodology. 2. Subsequently the committee should analyze these products, not in secret but with the assistance of varied experts, and reply with multiple suggestions and a timeline to achieve action items. Iterating these two steps will develop an Iranian opposition that has the capacity to facilitate a democratic Iran, not naively destabilize Iran and force the global economy into a dive as the Iranian Revolution of 1979 did. Over time and the conscious dissemination of the products the groups create will generate legitimate political pressure, and I believe internationally approved pressure, that will either force the Iranian regime to change or implode. I think Ledeen’s correct, there is no reason to assume this process would take a long time. So what are we waiting for?
The defense of our nation is absolutely the single most important thing our government does. Everything else should be reviewed, reconsidered, downsized or eliminated in order to provide every practical advantage and benefit to our armed forces.
OK, I'll admit my lack of knowledge on the matter and ask who it was they put on a train.
Thanks for the detailed reply. I know that I don't have all the pieces of the puzzle on the table in front of me. I do hope that our leadership does and acts. Some of the obvious things would be visible even to a casual observer - e.g. a VOA type operation aimed at the Iranian people.
"Revoke each and every piece of "earmarked" pork from recent appropriations bills and put the money into the military." Great advise in any case. Please let's.
The Germans sent Lenin to Russia from Zurich, Switzerland in the middle of WW1. The revolution that followed is history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.