« Communist China Hates Your Children | Main | Blogbat Thought of the Day »

October 22, 2007

Some Thoughts on Iran

On whether, why, and how to take action against Iran

 

 

Legally speaking, the U.S. probably has more than enough cause to take action against Iran already because of its easily-provable direct involvement in insurgent activities in Iraq alone.

 

Practically speaking, Iran is on the verge of a successful nuclear program which runs parallel with its swiftly moving missile program (both thanks to North Korea, Russia, possibly elements in Pakistan, and certainly China, to name a few). As Reagan-era Assistent Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney Jr. and others have correctly pointed out over the past few years, Iran needs neither a sophisticated nuclear payload, a large arsenal, nor a high-precision ICBM (presumably such as those made in China based on technology stolen from the U.S. during the Clinton administration) to do significant damage and threaten the lives of millions of Americans or citizens of any other country, for that matter. All Iran needs to do is somehow get that one nuclear bomb to detonate at the right altitude and the ensuing electromagnetic pulse (or EMP) will leave a swath of fried circuitry across an entire continent. And frankly, Iran doesn’t even need a missile to do this. Such a threat could literally remove the target country from the list of developed states in a flash.

 

The Iran problem is somewhat more complicated because what we are effectively doing today is fighting a trickle-down enemy, while as yet seemingly not recognizing this dynamic. This enemy, who at the insurgency level is extremely challenging to neutralize and at the top-tier state level is too big for us to muster the will to acknowledge and confront, represents basically an entire ecosystem of axis power alignment, the nature of which means far more than the angry redirection of American search engines in reprisal for state visits to dissident leaders in China.

 

Naturally, Iran may force our hand; however, we should move circumspectfully, fully aware that some move by us may be the very thing for which our enemy was hoping. At the same time it is critical that we move unambiguously, while getting as much help as possible from within Iran and adequate intelligence to know what the heck we’re doing. Therefore, what we choose to do and how we align our ducks related to any action are probably as important as whether or not we make our move at all. Regardless, as I predicted in a precursor to this blog back in 2003*, Iran seems to be next in line; a necessary and most likely unavoidable fact. We need however to ensure it is addressed on terms favorable to our interests.

 

*Snippet:

 

*At present, Russia and China have continued to sell advanced weapons systems to Kim Jong Il's regime, despite U.S. concerns. U.S. Strategy.com reported in July that China was working with North Korea to bolster Iran's nuclear arms program by selling arms and providing advisors to the country. I would imagine it is fairly safe to say the Chinese and North Koreans would not be selling nuclear technology to anyone they thought would use it against them, so that means those weapons are most likely to be pointed in a direction North Korea approves of. Possibly where China has it's missiles aimed too: The U.S. and her interests.

 

So, what does Blogbat think the strategic value of Iran is that the two communist countries would risk the image of being on opposite sides of the Nukes-in-Korea issue they have worked so hard to maintain? It was clear several years ago to me and seems only to be borne out every year since, as our march to the east continues: It is the drawing of U.S. forces into an ever-deepening eastward-bound conflict that will eventually, by hopes of the communist countries, land us at the doorstep of the same, tired and over-stretched and at the opposite end of the arm of political wrangling in Washington. That and hopefully with the vast majority of the world turned against us. The conflicts have been carefully chosen, coupled with events stateside to effectively run us into the ground and make us a global afterthought. The Chinese even laid this out quite candidly in 2000 and 2001 with comments made by their defense minister stating that “war with the U.S. is inevitable” and that China would be ready for war with the U.S. by around 2005. In 2001 we went into Afghanistan. 2003, Iraq. In 2001, I predicted we would be in Iraq by this year, but I was unsure of the details until the events of September 11. Unfortunately, we do need to move east and keep fighting, that is really our forced move in this match. At the same time it seems clear that the manner in which we handle this will depend greatly on our resolve, our preparation and of course, our elections. Next year will be pivotal in deciding the tenor of the ongoing conflict to clean up the international mess we have let go for so long which now threatens to strangle us. More so than even in former years, this election, rather than deciding merely which party's social policies are enacted, may well decide an even greater outcome. (Read entire article here)

 

 

 

Posted by Martin at October 22, 2007 11:49 AM

Comments

There are a lot of fancy words in your post and frankly, with all due respect, they go almost nowhere. I don't know what you mean by a trickle down economy unless it trickles down from the centralized power of the Mullahs. The reality is that the Mullahs are ripe to fall, and it can be done peacefully however we need to get more nations involved. In fact, before that, all we really need to do is get more states involved. More and more states are outlawing investment into companies that do business with Iran. California is the most recent and Texas is next. If we get the majority of the fifty states to do this, Iran's economy will crumble. This has to come along with whatever UN sanctions we can muster, and finally our state department must work on a total diplomatic freeze on Iran. If those things happen simultaneously, the government falls on its own peacefully. Here is how I saw it.

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/07/confronting-iran.html

Posted by: Mike Volpe at October 22, 2007 02:17 PM

Hey Mike, thanks for commenting, and hopefully people will take a look at the post on your blog as well. :)

Oh, absolutely. It is quite possible that the mullahs will fall from internal forces alone and we certainly hope that. That is why I chose language in my post that describes the desired outcome: the removal of Iran as a threat. Whether we succeed in doing so through economic means remains to be seen (although time is running short on the nuclear front). Nevertheless, a peaceful resolution is always the better resolution when it can be achieved safely.

That said however, I must correct you on one thing: I made no mention of a trickle-down economy; what I wrote was "what we are effectively doing today is fighting a trickle-down enemy, while as yet seemingly not recognizing this dynamic." Reading the rest of the paragraph explains what is meant by that.

Posted by: Martin at October 22, 2007 02:54 PM

as u so eloquently display Martin, the problem is complex...however..the temptation is believe that war will solve all problems eh...I know on thing..there is no appeasing IzlamoNazis.....!

Posted by: Angel at October 22, 2007 04:04 PM

America's other challenge is to get Iran's neighbors on board regarding a possible war. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan want to help free Iran from the clutches of the Mullahs. But Washington's record in Iraq is scaring everybody. What if the Americans screw up again and leave everyone else in the region to pick up the pieces?

Posted by: Ahmed Quraishi at October 22, 2007 04:37 PM

True, Angel. Sun Tzu was quite right in noting that it is important to keep in mind your goals and not to let the method of achieving them become a goal in itself. Both liberals and conservatives can be guilty of the latter. However, it seems increasingly likely that some amount of force (preferably internal) may be necessary.

Posted by: Martin at October 22, 2007 05:36 PM

Which is quite a real concern, Ahmed. Had Washington (or were Washington to in the future) addressed the insurgency in Iraq with particular attention on the Iran factor, this could have helped create an understanding of some of the challenges being faced in Iraq and a logical context under which states like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, et al could more enthusiastically, if not somewhat more confidently coalesce against the current regime in Iran, particularly in any military fashion. That said, it remains nevertheless strongly in these states' national interests to not have a nuclear Iran, regardless of whether past US performance in Iraq has trumped their concerns for the style of regime under which Iran currently operates.

Thanks for your comments. :)

Posted by: Martin at October 22, 2007 05:37 PM

You said "some move by us may be the very thing for which our enemy was hoping". I've heard this posed other places also, and it's something we need to consider.

Posted by: Debbie at October 22, 2007 10:44 PM

So true. Yet, if we must make such a move, we still can choose a course of action suitable to our liking. Also, it's important to bear in mind the possibility that just because an enemy may wish to force your hand, it does not always mean his hand is better. However, Iran’s radicalism means this matters little, which of course is perfectly suitable to the Chinese, the North Koreans, and the Russians, all of whom are happy to use Iran as their attack dog at this stage in the game.

Posted by: Martin at October 23, 2007 12:22 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?