Archive for the ‘Iran’ Category.
16th May 2006, 05:49 am
Being the foreign policy genius I am, I came up with a proposal to end the Iranian nuclear crisis while stuck in stop-go-watch the idiot next to me try to race ahead in his overpriced, overpowered mass-produced luxury sports car-traffic. Here it is:
Iran claims that it’s nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. The United States publicly announces that it will take the Iranian’s word for this based on the following conditions.
1. Although Iran is currently not a direct threat to the US, it is a threat to our ally Israel. Any overt – or covert – nuclear attack on Israel will result in the treatment of the incident as a direct nuclear attack on the United States. We would then massively retaliate – not limited strikes – but massive complete nuclear annihilation.
Any suspicious nuclear explosion would assumed to be the product of terrorism supported by Iran. We would then hold Iran accountable for any such attack .
Any European ally wishing to may participate in this “nuclear umbrella” over Israel. This means that nuclearized France could join in our protection of Israel.
2. This umbrella can be extended to our allies in NATO on a state-by-state basis. A country could elect to be protected by our nuclear umbrella – or not – depending on its needs. Therefore if a nuclearized France opted out of our umbrella and if it was hit by a nuclear attack, the United States would not respond.
3. This umbrella would also cover Iraq due to our ongoing efforts to rebuild that nation. Any nuclear attack on that nation would be treated as a direct attack on the United States and be treated accordingly.
4. Should Iran become a direct threat to the United States (development of ICBMs for example), the nuclear umbrella would be extended to the United States territory.
While this is a bit melodramatic – as any discussion that has the word ‘annihilation’ in it must be – so are the risks of a nuclearized Iran. To limit these risks this proposal would
a) Encourage Iran to pursue peaceful nuclear technology – and be open about it.
b) Encourage Iran to police itself to prevent being held responsible for any technology falling into the “wrong hands”.
c) Discourage Iranian saber rattling – such as talk of “obliterating the Zionist Entity”.
d) Encourage the Russians and Chinese to exert control on Iran, since neither one of these states would be covered by the “nuclear umbrella”.
e) Remove the US from the forefront of these negotiations. The President of Iran has attempted to portray this crisis as little Islamic Iran vs. the Great “Crusader” Satan USA. Allowing him to pursue nuclear tech within these well-defined boundaries ends that.
24th March 2006, 09:16 am
StrategyPage has an essay on Iran titled “It’s so Confusing“. After reading it, I’m sure you’ll agree because I’m a bit thrown by it too. The essence of the article is that Iranian society is very complex, and our efforts to contain the “Mad Mullahs” can drive the people to support them if we aren’t careful.
So far it appears that we are doing the right thing by pursuing a diplomatic solution. We should consider treating Iran the same way we treat North Korea – ignoring it’s public outbursts, punishing its negative behavior and rewarding the positive. Nothing drives a dictator like Kim Jong il more nuts than to have an outburst and be completely ignored. We should treat Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the exact same way. Deny the Holocaust? Well, that’s predictable. Wipe Israel off the map? Heh, just try. Anti-Semitic cartoon contest? Yawn.
The US must remember that it has less to lose than many of the regional players; consequently it needs to resist the temptation to fix everything and let the smaller players do more to change the behavior of the local “bad-boy” regime. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and even Pakistan don’t want to see a nuclear-armed apostate regime (don’t forget that Shi’a are to Sunnis what 16th century Protestants were to Catholic and Inquisition-ruled Spain). The likelihood of Iran passing on nuclear weapons to terrorists is minimal, as al-Qaeda – an organization founded on the belief that America was still ruled by Jimmy Carter and wouldn’t strike back – has shown itself incapable of fighting the US or controlling its actions. Even passing the arms to Hezbollah, Hamas or other likeminded terror groups in and around the Middle East wouldn’t be reasonable since the discovery of such technology transfer could trigger an attack. Plus, nuking Israel would simply be suicide of the highest order that surely the Mad Mullahs themselves understand.
So the only solution is to wait them out and hope – yes hope - that as time goes by the Iranian leadership is replaced by someone else before they acquire nukes. We must face the fact that even if they do acquire nukes, the risks of a nuclear armed Iran are outweighed by the risk attending to an invasion of Iran. The world will be slightly more dangerous over the coming years but it’s not like we have any better choices.
9th March 2006, 09:02 am
I have added a new category, Iran, because I believe that we are heading towards a resolution with this nation – which has been at war with us since 1979. I now believe that we will strike back – the only question is when and how.
StrategyPage reports that there is a significant divide between the ruling elite and the people of Iran. The question becomes: How do you remove the former without alienating the latter?
I suppose we are going to find out over the coming months.
