| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran | |
| Iran in bombsights? by Arnaud de Borchgrave | |
| 2004-07-06 | |
| As the Bush administration concludes it cannot risk Iranian retaliation against a fragile Iraq under U.S. occupation, Israel is dusting off contingency plans to take out Iran’s nuclear installations. On June 24, Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (41), asked the key question: "Are we serious in our efforts to prevent [Iranian] nuclear proliferation, or will we watch the world descend into a maelstrom where weapons-grade nuclear material is plentiful, and unimaginable destructive capability is available to any country or group with a grudge against society?" It did not require an overwhelming effort of imagination for Israel’s national security establishment to conclude the Jewish state would be the first threatened by Iranian nukes. One scenario now bruited would involve a joint U.S.-Israel precision-guided strike against the Bushehr, Natanz and Arak nuclear projects in Iran. But the Bush administration has concluded a U.S. air attack against Iran would trigger a major Iranian campaign to destabilize Iraq. The two countries share a 1,458-kilometer (906-mile) border stretching from Turkey to the Shatt al Arab terminal on the Gulf. Iran also enjoys wide grass-roots support among Iraq’s dominant Shi’ite population. A U.S. House of Representatives resolution last May 6 authorized "all appropriate means" to end Iranian nuclear weapons development. The Senate is yet to vote on the resolution. But it leaves no doubt it is a green light for offensive military strikes against Iran’s three nuclear facilities. The worldwide reaction against a U.S. attack on Iran’s theocratic regime would almost certainly put an end to growing moderate dissent. Rival Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims in Iraq, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain (headquarters for the U.S. 5th Fleet) would close ranks against U.S. interests. America’s allies would denounce a return to dangerous U.S. unilateralism after President Bush’s recent moves back to multilateral diplomacy. While an "October surprise" of U.S. air strikes to rid the world of Iran’s looming nuclear threat might help President Bush Nov. 2, the blowback of unintended consequences would further destabilize the world’s most volatile region — the Middle East.
Israeli leaders concluded years ago that A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb and the world’s biggest nuclear proliferator, had sold bomb-making wherewithal to Iran and nothing would reverse this capability short of air strikes, similar to the one Israeli fighter-bombers conducted in 1981 against Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad. It had been built with French assistance, including 27.5 pounds of 93 percent weapons-grade uranium. When Israeli intelligence confirmed Iraq’s intention of producing weapons at Osirak, Prime Minister Menachem Begin decided military action was the only remedy. Elections then and now were a consideration. Mr. Begin feared his party would lose the next election, and the opposition Labor Party would fail to pre-empt prior to production of the first Iraqi nuclear bomb. Iraq was believed to be two years from its first nuclear weapon. So Israel had to strike before the Iraqi reactor went critical, before the first fuel was poured into the reactor, lest the surrounding community fall victim to radiation. Similar preparations to take out Iran’s capabilities — also judged to be two years from nuclear fruition — have been completed. Standoff, precision-guided munitions will have to be used to avoid Iran’s thick air defenses, including missiles purchased from Russia. After several years of denial about an Iranian bomb-making potential, President Putin of late has sided with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s chief Mohamed el Baradei’s strong criticism of Iran’s bad faith in its refusal to comply with the international inspection regime. Mr. Putin presumably realizes a nuclear-armed Iran ruled by religious fanatics would probably be tempted to pass on dangerous stuff to Islamist guerrillas in Chechnya. Originally started during the shah’s reign in a deal with Siemens, some 2,100 German and 7,000 Iranian workers completed 85 percent of the work before the 1979 revolution. The ayatollahs then decided to drop the entire project as "anti-Islamic," before changing their minds in favor of construction in the early 1990s. Fearful anxiety prevailed among the clerics after they watched in awe the deployment of half a million American soldiers and the five weeks of saturation U.S. bombing that preceded Operation Desert Storm — and the collapse of the Iraqi army. They watched a rerun of another U.S. military spectacular in 2003 — with yet another collapse of the Iraqi military. The Europeans still believe political, economic and trade sanctions will eventually bring Iran into compliance. The Bush administration is on the horns of a painful dilemma. How can it claim Iran has no right to nuclear weapons when Israel not only possesses both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, but has several hundred in its arsenal? Pre-empting Iran would also undermine the administration’s last shred of credibility as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians. After all the blue-smoke-and-mirrors "intelligence" that justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq 15 months ago, CIA evidence of an Iranian nuclear bomb would have to be incontrovertible. This sets the bar impossibly high. Hence Israel’s conclusion it is on its own. Bombs away? Not yet, but they’ve rehearsed it. | |
| Posted by:Mark Espinola |
| #15 Aris, again, I agree with you and think Zhang is sorely mistaken. These are all faces of the same enemy that is Islamofacism--in Iran, in the Paleo areas, in Syria, in Soddy, in Iraq, etc. The only difference between the enemies we face are whether they are Sunni or Shi'a (which matters more to them) and what they call their group. Given all the most recent events, Iran is lining itself to be the next candidate for régime change. Good thing, too. Hezbollah, whose nest is in Iran, inter alia, needs to be dealt with BIG TIME. |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-07-06 8:55:20 PM |
| #14 It doesn't. Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran are completely separate from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I don't think it should be. The Hamas Islamofascist movement is not significantly different (except in being more local in scope) in motivation, means or goal than Al Qaeda. If there's a single thing that unites Islamofascists everywhere, besides Sharia, is that they don't believe Israel has a right to exist. Islamist imperialism takes many forms and in the end won't have been defeated until all Muslim countries in the region recognize that right of Israel's. Terrorism in Madrid and New York were part of global Islamofascism, so why not the bombings of Israel? Where Hamas (atleast) is concerned they are not part of an independence movement (like the Basques or Chechens) they are part of a genocidal movement. Some people claim "Iraq was attacked because of Israel" as if it's an accusation -- and some people refute this as if it's an accusation. On my part, I *hope* it was atleast partly because of Israel, because that's a meaningful reason and tons better than others I've heard. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-07-06 8:41:44 PM |
| #13 My question is how to add (1) a bombing of Iranian nuclear reactors and (2) an Iranian population angry at the Mullahs and come out with regime change. Would the bombing help or hinder the democracy movement. |
| Posted by: Yank 2004-07-06 8:03:25 PM |
| #12 A GPS guided, depleted Uranium, non-explosive penetrator dropped by a stealth bomber on an Iranian nuke plant would probably look like the world's biggest "work accident", wuddenit? And don't tell me I'm the only one thinking this thought right now... |
| Posted by: Parabellum 2004-07-06 7:46:54 PM |
| #11 .com -- simply magisterial! I think you've left no brick on top of a brick there. And in this case de Borgrave deserved it -- his essay was notable mostly as an impressive collection of straw men and unchallenged shibboleths. I especially love these comments about American "credibility" being damaged by various bogus factors (our intel isn't perfect, France doesn't like us, it rained hard yesterday, whatever). It truly is a measure of how out of touch so many are, and how skewed towards fantasy are the parameters of debate, that anyone can suggest US credibility is anywhere shy of an all-time high. It's especially hilarious to hear US credibility doubted in connection with the Palestinians -- Dubya is the first president in history to compel them to eat their own cooking, and if acquiescing in an over-due Israeli unilaterally-imposed interim solution doesn't establish credibility, I don't know what could. |
| Posted by: Verlaine 2004-07-06 6:42:50 PM |
| #10 Arnaud de Borchgrave: Pre-empting Iran would also undermine the administration’s last shred of credibility as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians. Why mention Iran? Muslims could probably have said the same thing about the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. I think de Borchgrave is fixated by the idea that America's entire foreign policy turns upon the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It doesn't. Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran are completely separate from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If the Palestinians want to link the issues, that's their funeral. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-07-06 1:30:15 PM |
| #9 America’s allies would denounce a return to dangerous U.S. unilateralism after President Bush’s recent moves back to multilateral diplomacy. "Allies" who have a clear understanding of what's at stake will do no such thing. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-07-06 1:09:52 PM |
| #8 This piece reads like a wierd bit of disinformation. Perhaps the (amazingly offensive) anti-Israel baloney offers a clue as to why? |
| Posted by: someone 2004-07-06 1:08:03 PM |
| #7 This turned out to be a bit more than $0.02, my apologies... The article's anchor - and ours too for it is perfectly stated: "Are we serious in our efforts to prevent [Iranian] nuclear proliferation, or will we watch the world descend into a maelstrom where weapons-grade nuclear material is plentiful, and unimaginable destructive capability is available to any country or group with a grudge against society?" It did not require an overwhelming effort of imagination for Israel’s national security establishment to conclude the Jewish state would be the first threatened by Iranian nukes. He tosses in Putin / Russia as having, perhaps, bought a clue. I don't know if it's right to say that Russia is the only entity to get it, but I'll take the point as is. Issues and "blowback" for action: Claim: End growing moderate dissent. Ah, we've been looking for the Moderate Muslims - Perhaps Arnaud can point out where they are hiding and tick off their, no doubt, ground-shaking achievements and ground-swell of growing support. Must number in the tens, by now. I've got my reading glasses on, a microscope nearby, and I'm ready. Dissent in the ranks. Uh yeah, right - when there's not a fundie within 1000 miles you'll hear some insignificant Imam whisper he sure wishes they didn't control the funding for his moskkk. Red Herring. Claim: Muslims would unite against the US / West. Um, lessee, where has the "Muslims-first" meme failed to occur? Seethe me, baby, I'm ready. When and where has it NOT kicked-in when any Muslim group confronts any non-Muslim group? Look at the Arab League's silence regards (everything, actually, but...) Darfur, for example. Had they not circled the wagons in the Muslims-first response, they would gain untold good-will from the "world community" - I guarantee Kofi would blow each and every League Rep for such a tiny display of humanity – merely by breaking the Muslims-first rule. Red Herring. Claim: America's "allies" would denounce a return to dangerous U.S. unilateralism. Keywords: allies / return to... unilateralism / dangerous Allies - Which allies does he have in mind? The ones who worked like hell to torpedo the US at every turn regards Iraq, NATO, etc. for dubious reasons, such as monetary gain and fear of exposure for everything from illegal arms sales to Saddam to the UNSCAM Oil for Food fiasco? They would prefer Saddam was still in power, that has become obvious. Surely, not those allies who began demonizing George Bush long before Iraq, long before even the first US troops were mobilized to go to Bahrain and Qatar, whose presence finally convinced Saddam to let the UNMOVIC guys back in. Who vilified Bush for their own political gain in their home countries long before he had unilaterally done diddley-squat? Timelines, Arnaud. Keep one, keep it up to date, and it will keep you from making stupid statements. Return to unilateralism - This is not separate from the abandonment of our putative allies, it is what's left when those who make lofty resolutions full of consequences are ridiculed for their lack of resolve, will, and teeth by the tyrants... If you actually meant what you said and voted for, and the others didn't, are you not thus left alone to act or join the gutless wonders? Did they not leave you, not the other way round? What's so fucking hard to understand here? Dangerous - for whom? What's dangerous is teaching the world's Bad Boyz that you don't have the guts, the will, the means, or the stomach to keep your promises, whether good or bad. This is the key to being a good parent: keep all your promises, good and bad - just think before you make them. The UNSC acts as the watchdog. I'd say that, where there's a lack of cash on the table, the old mutt seems pretty toothless. Mebbe it's time to put him on a soft-foods diet - or to sleep. Claim: Further destabilize the world's most volatile region. Yeah, and that's bad because... No, jokes aside, ask why it's volatile already - it couldn't be because of Islam, could it? I recall a recent article showing a very high percentage (90+%?) of the world's current conflicts are Muslim vs. ??? violence - insert your favorite religion. Spreading the word of Allan. Ask why it deserves to be stable - to keep in power all of those dictatorships who are busily destabilizing or supporting violence the world over, via the culprit Islam? The Myth of ME Stability - and our duty to save this precious illusion is beyond absurd. The ME contains the root causes of most of the world's current violence. A complete burn-off followed by tilling this garden as deep as you can would make far more sense than a maintenance schedule of dhimmi tribute. Claim: Pre-empting Iran would also undermine the administration’s last shred of credibility as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians. Can I get a "f**kin duh" here children? When will the MSM flunkies quit whipping this dog? The obvious truth is that there is no solution acceptable to both sides. Period, full stop. For 60 yrs this zit on the tip of the tail of the dog has tried to wag the whole world... and has succeeded. That is until now. The Paleos are going to be there, regardless, marching around and killing anyone and everyone they can possibly justify killing. It is the most demented group of people on the planet. No one (we're talking about people with a brain) remotely believes any solution is possible - except the genocide of one or both parties. The only outsiders with an interest in keeping this myth alive are the ME dictators who use it as a distraction for their deluded, raped, looted, and pillaged Muslim populations and Socialist subversives who want to use it wherever possible as a leverage point against the US. Put this rabid dog down, now. The Good News: A U.S. House of Representatives resolution last May 6 authorized "all appropriate means" to end Iranian nuclear weapons development. Point: This does not limit action to the short-term solution - a facilities strike only. The Mullahs will keep trying - especially now that they've spent so much capital waving their fists and bragging about how big their dicks will be. A cornerstone of their Foreign Policy is that having nukes makes them immune to external pressure. And, as Arnaud says himself (we already knew, but we'll give him billing here) "Iran has vowed on numerous occasions to destroy Israel the minute it gets the ability" - I love the Mullahs cuz they're clear as glass. With the true picture of the Mullah mindset, it is obvious that regime change is the answer, not simple strikes. Strikes mean having to say you're sorry - you'll be back, in 6 months, a year, two years, whenever, but just as sure as there are Mad Mullahs, you'll be back - to fight the baby Mad Mullahs of tomorrow. Regime change brings many bennys... 1) It's a Four-Fer. No, I’ll make that 4 1/2. a) Arnaud mentions the benny of ending direct Iranian actions against Iraq: funding, training, & manpower – not to mention constant Shi’ite crap. b) The Iranians are the paymasters for Hisbollah so that put a major crimp in the support for a major terror group - benefits many people in many places. c) Removing the funding for Syria strangles their hold over Lebanon. d) Removing the funding for Syria probably effectively ends Syrian actions against Iraq ad they will be isolated, busily covering their asses, and undoubtedly more "compliant" with "requests" from Iraq and the US to control their border with Iraq e) The 1/2 should be the dramatic reduction of suppression of the Syrian Kurds - and who knows where that will lead... Think coastline, not land-locked, on the Med. Mmmmmm. I love the Med in fall… from Kurdistan, heh. 2) It gives the Iranian people a chance to form a modern Islamic democracy. Which they are far better suited and motivated to do than the Iraqis. Many of them alive today can recall the advantages of life pre-1979 - before the Ultimate Mad Mullah, Khomeini, returned from exile in France (where else?) at the overthrow of the Shah. This is a big advantage and asset. The stories these people have told their children, their quiet complaints about the rule of the Mullahs, etc have all had a subtle impact on the mindset of the Iranian population - creating a tendency to at least listen, if not long for a secular democratic state. The unrest there proves the point. If handled right, we could assist the Iranians in taking back their country - and do it with minimal direct boots on the ground. In fact, I stake everything I believe regards Iran on the lynchpin that it must be the Iranians who take control - we only assist by decapitating the regime and take the hardpoints they cannot. 3) Remove a major oil supply from Islamic control. OPEC, of course, is an evil for those who are not in it. I don't know what will happen with Iraq or Iran regards OPEC (i.e. will they join?), but our efforts should definitely have a positive effect. Is there more? Sure – lotsa smart people ‘round here who can provide more bennys and reasons why regime change would be the best answer, now and in the future. -30- |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-06 10:27:02 AM |
| #6 That's faith based folly Kamel Krap. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-07-06 8:39:52 AM |
| #5 Better stick to a consistent mime, DBT: you forgot to mention how much oil that $130B got us. Thanks for confirming that the war was never for oil. of course, before you yelp that that was an "inadvertent slip", you damn liberals build mountains out of "inadvertent slips". Time to swallow what you, and mhore, dish out to everyone else. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2004-07-06 7:53:47 AM |
| #4 When the one-time Iraq elections are held next year, Iran will be handed that country as an Islamofascist asset. Therefore, they will stall proliferation issues while US taxpayers subsidize the inevitable, genocidal Hizbollah state. US money-burning on Iraq has now reached $130,000,000,000, and the goods in exchange is: a proto-Islamofascist state. There will be a populist American reaction to that Bush-Powell folly. |
| Posted by: Dog Bites Trolls 2004-07-06 5:29:14 AM |
| #3 Oops - A5549 is me. Wiped my cookies. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-07-06 3:20:27 AM |
| #2 Normally, I find de Borchgrave to be both informed and compelling. However, this article has some odd and, I would say, irrelevant points upon which he hangs much weight. I'm too tired to fisk it right now, so I'll sleep on it. First blush, however is that he is both too pessimistic about the "world's reactions" and yet another person who should quit flogging the canard that the ME has some precious stability which needs husbanding. Bullshit to both. Regards the Paleos, no lasting peace or solution was never ever going to happen anyway. A 60 yr old pipe dream, repeatedly dashed on the rocks, because it counts on the Paleos yielding their stranglehold on defeat. Anyway, the main relevant points (and a couple I believe he left out) need to be picked out and picked apart - analyzed for relevance and impact -and I believe that would not be so hard to do. But later. ZZZZzzzz. |
| Posted by: Anonymous5549 2004-07-06 3:19:53 AM |
| #1 Not an October surprise, perhaps a November 3rd surprise |
| Posted by: Capt America 2004-07-06 2:41:12 AM |