August 15, 2006
Next Stop
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, head wacko of Iran, has dismissed calls for his country to give up efforts at uranium enrichment and other work that could lead to the development of nuclear weapons. We're one a four-lane highway that is about to become a one-way dirt road.
Iran can not back down from US/European/UN pressure and still save face in the Arab world. As it stands now, Tehran has its fingers and thumbs in every terrorist pie from the eastern shore of the Med to Afghanistan. Any pullback will look like weakness in the eyes of the "Arab street"; from their view, this probably seems more suicidal than a showdown with the West.
As long as Iran maintains a hard line, the options are very limited: embargo, invasion or ignore the entire issue and hope it goes away. I think we all know that the latter is not likely to occur, at least not unless the Democrats win back the White House in 2008. An embargo will be weak at best, since Iran's borders are porous and "allies" such as Russia and France are more than willing to do business with anyone who has cash, oil or very large credit cards.
That leaves invasion, and that's out of the question. Iran is not Iraq; an invasion would be bloody and an occupation worse than anything we have seen thus far. Yes, there is a large anti-government movement in Iran, but it could very well disintegrate at the first sign of an invasion. And American domestic support for such an operation would be weaker than current support for operations in Iraq.
There is another option, but I don't believe it's on the table (at least not yet). Since it is apparent that radical Muslims only understand force, promise force: announce that any facility that is suspected of enriching uranium, building nuclear weapons or researching long-range missiles will be destroyed from the air, immediately and without warning. I know that some of the suspected research sites are underground, but I have no doubt our intelligence services could discover enough of them to leave the Iranians scratching their heads.
The leadership in Iran knows that they are putting the West in the position of either putting up or shutting up. It's the best move they could make with the hand they've been dealt. Look how well it's work so far.
Posted by Matthew at August 15, 2006 09:08 PMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.opaquelucidity.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/846
I like it Matt. That's all we really need to do. Just destroy the facilities as they become known to us. It limits bloodshed and saves us face with the rest of the world. The UN will wring their hands but at this point who cares?
Posted by: David![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.opaquelucidity.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 15, 2006 10:26 PM
I'd support it. Seems like our only viable option considering how politically split our country is. As far as the UN....I am with David. Who cares.
Posted by: Sly at August 16, 2006 08:17 AM
Warning: Post may be considered flame bait or offensive to some.
After nearly a decade of listening to Clinton bashers blaming the ex-president for a failure to respond to changing world events and thus directly impacting 9/11, we now have TWO openly hostile countries North Korea and Iran with nuclear ambitions in a post 9/11 world. And what has the Bush administration done about it? Anything other than what Clinton would have done? Matt’s post once again states that the issue will only be ignored if the Democrats win the white house in ’08. The blind hypocrisy on the right is truly staggering.
So now we have Iran wanting to enrich Uranium and Matt’s proposal (I am sure supported by many) is that we destroy any facilities enriching uranium, building weapons or long range missiles. I can see the simple argument for items #2 and #3. A preemptive strike against a hostile country developing WMDs that has ties to groups we consider terrorists is the same reason we used to invade Iraq. Look how well that has gone. But under what moral/ethical/legal grounds do you destroy an enrichment facility? The NPT which the US loves to champion specifically allows enrichment for power purposes.
… “Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.”
Or do such privileges only apply to friends of ours? The NPT is widely recognized as an elitist clique. Note that there are only 3 countries that did not ratify this treaty - India, Pakistan and Israel. India and Pak have detonated nukes, so I guess they get to join the club. Israel couldn’t care less what the world thinks, and God bless ‘em for that. I don’t see anyone clamoring to inspect Israel’s nuclear facilities or imposing sanctions and I am sure they would give you the middle finger if you tried. But hey, Iran is a signatory to the NPT. They have had their facilities inspected voluntarily. They suspended their enrichment program in November 2004 for 6 months voluntarily. There is currently NO EVIDENCE that Iran is using its nuclear power capabilities to produce nuclear weapons, and the known facilities do not have the capability to produce weapons grade material. They have enriched uranium to what 3.5%? And it takes 90% enrichment to get to weapons grade?
I am not an Iran “fanboy” by any means. And yes, their leader has openly stated his intentions regarding Israel. But if we want to stand on some high moral ground and deliver judgment, then I fail to see what grounds we have. Maybe we can concoct up some more WMD evidence due to “faulty intelligence” and make a case.
As a last tidbit for thought, Article X allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months' notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice. NATO does not believe in this 3 month notice. NATO argues that when there is a state of "general war" the treaty no longer applies, effectively the states involved leave the treaty with no notice. Our administration has time and again made it clear that we are at “War”. I don’t know the definition of “general war” is, but I can’t see a war any more general than the one we are in today. So technically I guess we could walk away from NPT any day now and just Nuke Iran. Any takers?
at August 16, 2006 10:51 AM
Hash, I would agree with you IF I could hold all nations around the globe as being equal in terms of moral standing. However, that is not the case. Yes, the US, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, UK and France (and a few others I'm sure I've missed) have nuclear weapons. Elitist club? Yup. And it needs to stay that way.
I personally don't care if we have the moral high ground or not. If this means we need to leave the NPT, then so be it. It is obviously ineffective anyway. The fact is that Iran will, one day, be a nuclear-capable nation. It's cheaper to stop it now than wait until it's in the position North Korea is: a direct threat to the entire region.
Posted by: Matt_D at August 16, 2006 11:27 AM
Seems like Hash would rather hide in the corner and pretend things aren't happening. Just close your eyes while your in the corner and hold your ears, you won't know we are sending over the bombs.
Posted by: Jomerica at August 16, 2006 05:53 PM
Jomerica,
What part of my post implies in any way that I would rather hide in the corner and pretend things aren't happening? Macho cowboy bravado is fine on a blog, but when you go in without a plan - and shit hits the fan - is when you get into the king of mess we are in Iraq.
Read my last paragraph in my post. " ...I can’t see a war any more general than the one we are in today." Sound like someone who pretends things aren't happening?
I come from a city that saw terrorist bombings 8 years before 9/11, less than 5 miles from our house. So unless you lived in downtown Manhattan on September 2001, I believe I have some perspective on the global terrorism threat.
at August 16, 2006 07:40 PM
This should answer your first question, it came from your reply. Shows you are in denial of the real world happenings. There is currently NO EVIDENCE that Iran is using its nuclear power capabilities to produce nuclear weapons, and the known facilities do not have the capability to produce weapons grade material. They have enriched uranium to what 3.5%? And it takes 90% enrichment to get to weapons grade?
And my reply about pretending things aren't happening.....
Wake up they are trying to make nuclear bombs... Don't pretend they are not.
Being 5 miles from a bombing????
Well I live 5 miles from an active Hospital. Does that give me perspective on ER operations??
at August 16, 2006 08:15 PM
Ok, I'll bite.
So, Iran didn't wake up yesterday and decide to make nuclear weapons. Neither did North Korea. And just what the fark has this administration done about it since 9/11? Have they gathered and presented ANY evidence to the world that this is indeed the case? All we have is self declarations by Iran regarding how much uranium they have enriched and a declared withdrawal by North Korea from the NPT.
The american military is not a toy for your amusement so you can watch bombs drop on CNN. Serious minded peole have valid reasons for dropping bombs and know the consequences when they do so.
Keep in mind that the most recent attempt to annihilate hundreds of americans was not thwarted by bombing someone into the stone age. It was defeated by old fashioned human intelligence and policework.
No, living 5 miles from an active hospital doesn't give one perspective on ER operations. Working in one for busy 12 hour shifts does. I have. See the difference?
Posted by: Hash at August 16, 2006 08:36 PM