November 29, 2004
Red Light, Green Light
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee - I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can’t get fooled again.” - George W. Bush.
Kudos to Bush for refusing to be fooled even once by the duplicitous Iranian government. While there are many areas on which we can and should work with Iran - refugees, Kurds, opium, border control, etc. - the administration is taking the right tack in refusing to believe anything they hear from Teheran on Iran’s nuclear plans.
After the latest Iranian agreement to scale back their plans, I did a quick search to ascertain whether they have been as two-faced as I remember. My search was well rewarded:
PARIS, Nov. 22 - Iran appears to have frozen major nuclear activities in an effort to persuade the world that it does not intend to build nuclear bombs, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency said Monday.
"I think pretty much everything has come to a halt right now, so we are just trying to make sure that everything has been stopped," Mohamed ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told reporters in Vienna.TEHRAN (AFP) Oct 03, 2004
A huge majority of MPs in Iran's conservative-controlled parliament wants the country to resume uranium enrichment and will soon begin discussing a bill that would force the reformist government to do so, a senior deputy said Sunday.
"The plan to oblige the government to resume enrichment has the support of 238 deputies" out of a total 290, said Allaeddin Borujerdi, the head of the Majlis (parliament) foreign policy and national security committee.NEW YORK (September 30) Iran's foreign minister has said that his country will never give up its right to develop nuclear technology for peaceful use, though he denied any intent to produce nuclear weapons.
TEHRAN (AFP) Apr 06, 2004
Iran promised the head of the UN nuclear watchdog Mohamed ElBaradei Tuesday that it would show greater transparency and cooperate more in a bid to quell suspicions it was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
Last October Iran gave the IAEA what it asserted was a complete declaration of its nuclear activities. It was later found to have made a number of omissions, including its acquisition of designs for sophisticated P-2 centrifuges that can enrich uranium to bomb-grade levels that are way above those required for atomic energy reactors.PARIS (AFP) Jan 14, 2004
[Chirac] led negotiations between Iran, the European Union and the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, at the end of last year which led to Tehran signing the additional protocol to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty last month.
The United States accused Iran of secretly working to manufacture highly enriched uranium, which can be used to make atomic bombs. Tehran has categorically denied the claims.
Not only does Bush know folksy sayings from Texas (and probably Tennessee), he no doubt also played "Red Light, Green Light" as a child. Most readers will remember the childhood game with fondness. The contestants try to advance toward the person who is "It", but can only do so when "It's" back is turned. "It" will try to catch the contestants in motion by whirling around and yelling "Red Light", at which point everyone freezes.
In the international politics version of the game, the International Atomic Energy Agency, headed by Mohamed ElBaradei, is "It", and Iran is a contestant sneaking toward nuclear armament. Iran, however, is breaking the rules. When caught moving, they are not returning to the starting point. The IAEA is certainly successful in delaying Iran’s nuclear development, but has never forced them to give up what they have and what they know.
How will the administration face what Bush called "the greatest threat facing America"? We have a few clues. First, it opposes renewal of ElBaradei's appointment atop the IAEA (Washington Times). Presumably, a more pro-American, tougher chief is on Condi Rice's Christmas wish-list. Without abandoning the IAEA, Washington will also attempt to bring Russia on board, along with England, France, and Germany, in agreeing to isolate Iran and freeze its program forcibly.
Even this, however, may not be enough. Think of the situation from Iran's perspective: a few years ago, the only U.S. presence they had to worry about was in the Persian Gulf, where America was a good neighbor, protecting oil shipping. In three years, however, the U.S. has conquered two of Iran's neighbors and replaced Russia and China as the principle power brokers in Turkmenistan and Pakistan, respectively. Russia has moved closer to the U.S., along with its Caucasian satellites, and Turkey has exerted greater control over its eastern provinces, again with U.S. assistance. Iran, like Syria, has gone from being well-insulated to almost completely surrounded!
Fearing for their ability to control what occurs on and around their borders, Iran's motivation to acquire nuclear weapons has only increased, and it is not at all certain that even a complete embargo could stop Teheran's nuclear plans. With a strong core of well-educated scientists, and a head start on the non-proliferation enforcers, the U.S. and its allies may be left with the very unpleasant choice of allowing Iran to exist with nukes or beginning a preemptive war.
Given Iran's psyche, geography, and solidity, an Iraq-style war would be so un-winnable as to be laughable. A limited invasion - intended to annihilate nuclear facilities and kidnap scientists - might be considered, but that would bear the cost of becoming an implacable enemy of a power likely to become nuclear. If there is any way to guarantee that Iran hands off nukes or dirty bombs to terrorists, it is to violently oppose Iran's nuclear ambitions and endanger "safe" deployment of finished weapons.
A nuclear Iran is an unpleasant reality for the United States. However, we can successfully cope with it if we use our experiences with China, Pakistan, and India as a template. Having second-strike capability has been the key to America's defense against nuclear enemies since the 1940's, and it should continue to be so. The only way we lose second-strike capability is if we totally disarm (a foolish notion) or if nuclear weapons fall into the hands of suicidal, untraceable terrorists. Bush was right that this is the gravest possible danger facing the United States, though not an immediate threat.
Our response to Pakistan's armament is instructive: we immediately buddied up to them. We made it clear that we would work with them against their own fundamentalist Islamic opponents in exchange for mild terrorist control on their part. We did not choose sides between them and India. And we continue to use large amounts of cash to effectively up the ante of any potential bribe from elsewhere.
Our policy toward Iran should follow this progression:
- Containment. Pursue the current policy of multilateral pressure. If the program cannot be stopped, it must be slowed. We hope that liberal forces take power before the nuclear program is completed.
- Co-optation. If containment fails, acknowledge Iran's nuclear status and work with them to keep the nuclear club small. Remember, once they become a member of the club they will be just as exclusionary as its current members are now.
- Threats. Possibly before Iran acquires nukes, adopt a policy of nuclear punishment. If any regime gives weapons to terrorists, we will treat the regime as if it fired the weapons itself. This threat may seem extreme, but it is no more extreme and just as necessary as the "mutually assured destruction" of the Cold War. Iran - or North Korea - is welcome to use its nuclear weapons as a form of defense. If by malice or incompetence it allows such weapons to fall into others' hands, it should be responsible for damage caused, and the only way to enforce is to threaten equal destruction.
Chops, this strategy will eventually bankrupt the U.S., as it did Rome.
Any autocratic state, or state with the potential of becoming autocratic, regardless of how benevolent the current regime is, with nuclear weapons is a potential threat to U.S. interests. Thus, a balancing act must be performed in an environment which is constantly shifting and changing. That balancing act is one of assessing the potential threat, and assessing whether or not the risks of not eliminating that states nuclear potential outweighs the risk of that state using WMD either against us or in a manner that would seriously and detrimentally affect us.
This is a balancing act Bush demonstrated to me he was not capable of handling when he invaded Iraq. And as long as we have a leader who is capable of misjudging foreign threats and acting on wrong information, the first priority in dealing with states like Iran is changing leadership at home.
Now we have two Republicans in Congress who threaten to derail our Intelligence community overhaul that would better prepare even this President in assessing those risks. The greatest threat to our ability to manage foreign threats appears to be the Republicans here at home.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2004 03:04 PMDavid -
Could you explain how this policy will lead to bankruptcy? I would be more afraid of a “Bushesque” policy of preemption and intervention, the cost of which is already staggering. What I attempt above is to formulate a policy that can protect the U.S. from nuclear attack without incurring a massive cost in lives, money, and credibility. I would be interested to hear your alternative.
My bankrupting reference is to sending 10’s or even hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to regimes to bribe them away from actions or toward actions that would preclude our having to consider regime change. In too many cases, this money does not get spent on democratizing those nation’s peoples, nor on elevating their people’s economic status. Thus, such money only buys short term security and does nothing to build longer term security for the U.S. thus requiring even more bribes to be sent year after year, decade after decade.
To avoid bankrupting the American taxpayers on foreign policy, we have simply got to make a long term investment in strengthening and broadening the powers of international organizations like NATO, the U.N. or replace them if they cannot be overhauled. We must begin making the down payment on removing ourselves from the role of world cop. If we don’t, we will bankrupt ourselves in the attempt to maintain that role.
My alternative you asked about is to elect a President who is capable of the balancing act I discussed above. Until 2008, we can only hope and pray that the Bush administration does not blow it again.
To be honest, I know that Rumsfeld and Cheney are very bright men, and capable of learning. I hope they learned from the Iraq quagmire that they cannot go off half cocked with unreliable intelligence into war with nations based on motives other than both short and long term American security interests.
To the extent that Bush relies on his cabinet to make decisions about engaging in wars, and to the extent that his war cabinet has learned some lessons from Iraq, it is possible we can get through these next 4 years without making the wrong decisions. I will however feel much more confident when this country elects another president who is far more versed in human knowledge and history than the current President, and is therefore less dependent on the DoD and Pentagon to make decisions about whether or not to take our nation to war.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 29, 2004 07:09 PMChops, that is a really dangerous strategy. I was against the Iraq war because it was pretty clear that they didn’t have any WMD or WMD programs worth speaking of - and as long as we were monitoring them, they wouldn’t have. If Iran refuses an effective verification regime, it’s a totally different story.
I’m really curious why Republicans over here think a military strike to disarm Iran can only end in failure.
I do not believe that any more countries should enter the nuclear weapons “club” at all. In fact, we should be reducing the number of members. We, through the UN and NATO - and alone if necessary, should have a strict non-proliferation policy.
If that’s not worth fighting for, I don’t know what is.
AP -
I’m surprised to hear a liberal advocate war, especially an unwinnable one in Iran. I was against the war in Iraq, but one in Iran would be many times more difficult unless we committed to waging a World War II-style destruction and annihilating that nation’s industrial (and nuclear) capability.
Nobody wants to admit more members to the nuclear club, but the reality is that it is going to happen. In the past five years alone, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have joined the club. We can’t totally prevent proliferation (though we can slow it). However, we do need to formulate a strategy to protect ourselves in a world where nukes will pose danger to us again just as they did during the Cold War.
Posted by: Chops at November 30, 2004 09:37 AMIran would be many times more difficult unless we committed to waging a World War II-style destruction and annihilating that nation’s industrial (and nuclear) capability.
I haven’t seen any analysis and I suspect that’s a worst-case scenario, but if that’s what it takes, it’s worth it.
Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism. To allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon is beyond completely irresponsible.
See, this is what you guys don’t seem to understand. Everyone with half a brain and a newspaper susbscription knew that al Qaeda was a bigger threat to the US than Iraq. Hell, al Qaeda pulled off the worst attack on American soil ever, they have hundreds of operatives and sympathizers already in the United States, and their leaders are freely moving about the world planning more attacks. Attacking a pretty obviously WMD-free Iraq was an irresponsible distraction and diversion of assets from neutralizing the greater threat.
Chops, I’m a Democrat, not a peacenik. If this country is threatened, that threat needs to be eliminated. If it looks like diplomacy has failed and an Iranian nuke is imminent, it needs to be stopped and I don’t care how costly or bloody the fight is because the alternative is worse.
Nobody wants to admit more members to the nuclear club, but the reality is that it is going to happen.
To be clear, I’m talking about nuclear weapons and not civic nuclear power, and proliferation of nuclear weapons is only going to happen if we allow it to happen. Nukes don’t grow on trees. They require rare materials, obvious programs, even more obvious testing, and specialized knowledge.
We can and we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
An even more worrisome scenario is loose nukes. If we can police up all the loose nukes within four years, rather than Bush’s fourteen year plan, it’s imperative that we do so.
When Democrats accuse Bush of being irresponsible in the defense of this nation for being distracted by Iraq, not taking a harder line on proliferators like North Korea and Pakistan, and being way too casual about keeping nukes out of the hands of terrorists, it’s not partisan BS. It’s a sincere desire for the safety and survival of this country.
AP, I agree with you that Iran should not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons. And N. Korea absolutely must be stopped from proliferating its technology to the highest bidder.
But, to do this right, our government absolutely must get an international coalition together to demonstrate that it is the world, not just the U.S., that is drawing the line in the sand. It will do no good to stop Iran’s development with our own nukes only to start world war in which the lesson of Iran is that you must have Nukes and use them in D.C. if you wish to stop the Christian American Crusade.
Stopping Iran must happen. The World must make it happen with the U.S. as a member. There is no other way to come out this confrontation without sacrificing our future for decades if not centuries to come.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 30, 2004 11:58 PMDavid, I think you’re absolutely correct, but I’m not going to rule out unilateral action if necessary.
I also have no problem with a preemptive strike to disrupt a clear and imminent attack on this country. It’s the preventative attacks like Pearl Harbor and Iraq that I have a problem with.
AP, we are in agreement. It is difficult for me as a buddhist to support lethal defense. But, I rationalize the difficulty away to some extent by declaring myself an American Buddhist :-) who accepts lethal defense as justified provided the truth and reality of the situation negates all other options for defense.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 1, 2004 06:36 AM
