Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Two Articles on Iran
Today, I read not only Jeffrey Goldberg's article on the policy options facing U.S. and Israeli leaders with respect to Iran's nuclear program but also Jon Lee Anderson's article built around an interview he conducted with that guy who wears the Members Only jacket. I greatly enjoyed both articles and recommend them to the readership, though I must confess to not understanding the business model at either the Atlantic or the New Yorker: these articles must have cost a fortune to produce in terms of travel and salaries for both writers, so how does giving them away for free on the internet make any sense at all? I subscribe to both the Atlantic and the New Yorker, and I am now feeling like a chump considering that fact that I read the first article online before it hit my mail box.
Anyway, the articles: they are good. I had some quibbles with each, though. At one point, Goldberg -- who, when reporting on Israeli and U.S. policy-makers, is pretty fantastic -- ponders the origins of Iranian anti-Semitism and ends up considering some stuff written by Shia clerics in the 16th and 17th centuries, perhaps unintentionally bolstering Hemingway's argument that writers should write what they know. I also wish Goldberg had spoken not just with the Netanyahu and Obama administrations but also with critics of the president. When an Esquire magazine writer recently asked some tough questions of Newt Gingrich on Iran, for example, it was kinda devastating:
You call Obama's Iran policy appeasement. But what's the alternative?
"Replace the government."
You're advocating war with Iran?
"Not necessarily. There's every reason to believe that if you simply targeted gasoline, and you maximized your support for dissidents in Iran, that within a year you'd replace the regime without a war."
That's it? After such an incendiary charge, your only solution is sanctions and speeches?
"The only thing you have to stop is gasoline," he repeats.
But that just seems like nuance, and only a minor difference with Obama's position.
"The difference between replacing a regime and appeasing a regime is pretty radical."
But you won't replace the regime that way. You're just tinkering with sanctions, which have never worked.
"I would cut off gasoline, and I would fund the dissidents," he repeats.
Oh... Anyway, I would have loved to see Goldberg ask questions of Palin or Gingrich or Romney on what U.S. policy toward Iran should be.
Anderson's article, meanwhile, has all the hallmarks of an article written by a writer who had to spin a story out of thin gruel. Anderson admits he was given very little cooperation by the Iranian regime outside of setting up the interview with Ahmembersonlyjad, but give Anderson credit for nonetheless making the article work. His article is a reminder that the Iranians are not just objects but agents in their own right: focusing on their agency and actions makes them both falible and all the more frightening in terms of what lies in store for the Middle East as a region in the years to come.
Online subscription for
Online subscription for Newspaper just doesn't work, too many sites offer the same information for free. Those that do put up a Paywall often hemorrhage money.
One problem with the article
One problem with the article by Jeffrey Goldberg. The Israeli raid on Osirak did not end Saddam Hussein's nuclear program as Goldberg suggests. Instead, it convinced him to shift from a relatively visible, localized program utilizing plutonium to a more ambitious, decentralized, uranium enrichment program. We found out in 1991 that Hussein was much closer to an atomic bomb than anyone had thought precisely because the program was secret. Had Hussein not been so foolish as to invade Kuwait and provoke an invasion, he would have in all likelihood have developed nuclear weapons by 1993 or so. Osirak did not end the Iraqi program; it destroyed one very visible and well-known facility. For more see Dan Reiter's "The Osiraq Myth" and Jeffrey Lewis' 2005 post on the topic. http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/633/osirak-revisited
It depresses me a little bit
It depresses me a little bit that Goldberg, who was so wrong about Iraq (especially with that NYer article), is still considered some kind of Middle Eastern authority. He, and others, talk scary stuff with regards to Iran, but I just have a hard time taking them seriously after what they did to hype the Iraq war. That's not to say he isn't correct this time around but I just find it harder to give him the benefit of the doubt.
For me, the interesting part
For me, the interesting part of the NYer article is the unbelievably forthright and candid commentary from Shariatmadari, e.g. "In whatever combination they attack us, the Americans with Israel or without, we will hit Israel. They have nukes, yes, but their entire territory will be under the barrage of our missiles." Etc.
Goldberg's article was
Goldberg's article was thorough, but I didn't see any particular surprises or insights in it. The only eye-raiser was maybe Bibi's daddy issues, but even here it's pretty well known he comes from a Jabotinskyite dynasty.
Glad the exchange on Iran
Glad the exchange on Iran from the Esquire Gingrich article was highlighted here, because the rest of the article is kind of gross.
On the Iran thing, I have to think that how frightening the Iranians are depends on how easily one is frightened. I agree the government there is a major regional problem that acts on some American weaknesses in that part of the world. But we created most of those weaknesses ourselves, and it was the Iranian government that got its legitimacy challenged last year, not ours. I also agree it's worth keeping a close eye on the Israelis, whose fears about the Iranians over the long term are not unreasonable but whose judgement about the short term we should never substitute for our own.
Nuisances and threats, though, are not the same thing. The Iranian government is a prize nuisance, but as far as the United States is concerned it has way more vulnerabilities that we do. We need to spend less time thinking about what the Iranian security services and their mullah mascots can do to us and more time thinking of things we can to do them.
"who, when reporting on
"who, when reporting on Israeli and U.S. policy-makers, is pretty fantastic"
Just say G-berg's nationally award-winning articles on HA are complete and utter crap ... You'll feel better.
From the Goldberg article:
From the Goldberg article:
"It’s so crowded, in fact, that the United States Central Command, whose area of responsibility is the greater Middle East, has already asked the Pentagon what to do should Israeli aircraft invade its airspace. According to multiple sources, the answer came back: do not shoot them down.)" and
"They (Israel) will not be asking for permission, because it will be too late to ask for permission."
IMO Israel has already requested permission of both the Bush and Obama administrations.
If permission has in fact been requested, why hasn't Israel already attacked Iran?
Let's say Goldberg is
Let's say Goldberg is correct and it's a better than 50% chance that Israel will attack Iran.
After the attack, say Iran retaliates with missiles fired into Israel, Hezbollah missiles to Israel, and attacks on US bases in the region, what are the chances that we will be dragged into the conflict? I'll answer myself, if US bases are fired upon by Iran, we will surely retaliate.
Is a 3rd war in our interest? How many Americans will be killed, what will it cost?
From Pat Lang's blog, there
From Pat Lang's blog, there is also this article on the expected outcome of a US attack on Iran, according to US general staff.
Spoiler: it doesn't look good.
What Israel lacks is an
What Israel lacks is an aircraft carier ...
Well, it's probably way to late for that, but I wonder whether giving the Kitty Hawk or the John F. Kennedy to Israel would have been an option.
- How long would have it taken to train Israeli pilots for F18s + crew ?
- What would have been the cost of keeping it operational for the purpose of sailing to the Persian Gulf?
The CVE (Queen Elisabeth class carrier) might be a better fit (GB could offer a good price if they get to built a third one and Israel takes delivery of one of the 2 that are currently being constructed), but won't be ready in time (only 2016, and then you still need training) ...
Most of the talk in the
Most of the talk in the articles is concerning the domestic sentiment in Israel and Iran. Gingrich, flippantly, stated that to defeat Iran's regieme he would use tactics that would affect Iran domestically. In the US our ability to take military action against Iran will end up being the public opinion of such an operation (war weariness).
I find it striking that Issues concerning Iran have such a domestic tone to them. This is not an instance where more abstract issues for a population are the point of contention for Iran, Israel and US. The tipping point will be there, domestically in the US, Israel, Iran or some combination between the three.
If there is a diplomatic solution to Iran, it is getting the nations on the other side of the gulf from Iran to stand up to Iran and tell Iran they will not accept them having a nuclear capability. I wish I understood the reasoning why they are content to arm themselves at a frantic pace, yet not use stronger words against Iran. Unless it is all lipservice we're being paid, and they actually do want Iran as the hegemon for the region. Again, is it domestic sentiment that drives this dynamic?
@Positroll - the cost of putting together and maintaining a CAG by Israel would probably end up being around 30% of their defense budget and take a decade to bring to IOC, at best. It'd be interesting to see what would happen to their CV (no way would they get a CVN) the first time it steamed into the GOO, let alone the SAG/SoH.
@YNSN Expensive, but might
@YNSN
Expensive, but might be worth it (except for timing), esp if US would let the Israelis train with their F18s in the US and would donate the F-18s used for the attack ...
P.S. I knew CAG and CV / CVN. I was able to find out the meaning of GoO and SoH. I can even guess IOC. But what the hell is SAG in this context?
"It'd be interesting to see
"It'd be interesting to see what would happen to their CV (no way would they get a CVN) the first time it steamed into the GOO, let alone the SAG/SoH."
Well it could enter the Perisan Gulf with its escorts as part of a combined task force with some US carriers for training purposes. Then the Israelis could cruise on their own there for a few days and stay on the Arab side. Then, on this or on later trip following the same pattern, comes an ultimatum by Israel, Iran declines, Israel declares war and continues to bomb them till all relevant airstrips and nuclear installations are destroyed. Then the group (including some ships carrying Apache helicopters to counter swarming tactics) slowly moves towards the Gulf of Oman and bombs anything on the Iranian side of the SoH that looks like a threat. Costly, but doable, imO ... And imagine the internal PR problem Iran would have: they can't even stop one single Israeli carrier, despite having this great airforce with locally produced top notch fighters (haha) ...
(If Iran instead attacks the combined task force (or the Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan, except by guerillas), it will fare even worse ...)
Both the Bush and Obama
Both the Bush and Obama administrations have told Israel that it can not cross US controlled air space to attack Iran. Otherwise Israel would have already attacked.
SAG = South Arabian Gulf the
SAG = South Arabian Gulf
the USN wouldn't put a CVN North of Hormuz for years, even now it is not done all that often. It's just too good of a target.
What Israel needs more than a CVN is a SSGN. Something that can go where it likes, but can shoot over 100 TLAMs. A CVN is good for power projection, but only if you have more than five, especially in Iranian waters, which most of Hormuz is.
Aircraft
Aircraft carriers.
Diplomatic solutions.
Phantom Air Strikes.**
"In the Face of Evil" Newt GG plan: War without blood. Redo CONPLAN NSC-68/Reagan&Thatcher&Gorby - Victory without Blood!!!
Listen - maybe I could sell ya my Patented Cure all "Time Machine". We'll go back in time and....
C'mon, give me some $timulation, Baby!!
What we need to do is get a set of balls and face the consequences of Iran going into production with Nukes, and that it's overwhelming force or do nothing (aka Diplomacy).
Of course then certain industries would probably put themselves out of a job. It's the Truthiness thing...
**the only likely Air Strike option: the Saudi's and other Arabs allow Israel to use their airspace. Now that's possible.
yeah...LOL.
yeah...LOL.
Those who don't learn from
Those who don't learn from the past ... and all that. This is starting to look more and more like 1913, where the big and minor powers started setting themselves up for self annihilation and some big powers got prodded into things by smaller ones.
Iran's tactics are amazingly obvious, think Hezbollah .. large. In the 2006 attack Hezbollah managed to keep firing hundreds of missiles per day and they admit they could have kept it up for a few months. This effectively paralysed large parts of the Israel economy, which was compounded when they called up their reserves as they lost the land battle.
The Israeli economy can only support a general mobilisation for at most a couple of months before they go bankrupt. And Hezbollah didn’t even go for the jugular, the large refinery in Haifa. Which it could have at least disrupted (now they can probably destroy) , taking out Israel’s economy, mobile forces and air force for a very long time.
For pete’s sake, Israel ran out of bombs and had to call on the US for more supplies. What part of ‘you lost badly’ can Israel not get? And this was one of Israel’s most planned wars! Briefed the US a year before it happened. I personally predicted it to friends 2 years before it happened, it was that obvious!
And do you really think that Israel pulled the plug because of 'international concerns', like that ever worked before plus the US (as planned and agreed in advance) blocked any interference and supplyed it ("new birthpangs in the MIddle East" and all that). No it ran away because it was being thumped on the ground and economically.
By asymmetric economic attacks and a (Swiss style) defensive light part time infantry.
Now what will Iran do? Drop several hundred basic (and cheap missiles) all over the Gulf day after day from already setup places in the mountains (look at Google Earth for the terrain). The good missiles will be kept for special targets, such as aircraft carriers, which if they aren’t a long way away will be damaged or even sunk (all the frigates are just tin cans, one hit gone and the Aegis system is good for one thing … you will be able to track very carefully the missile that kills you).
With the constant barrage Gulf shipping will cease … and that’s the end of the World economy folks.
If the US ramps it up, in response they start to hit other gulf States refineries, pipelines, etc, etc. Keep it long enough then a lot of the oil/gas will be taken out of circulation for years. Imagine $500+ a barrel and fuel rationing for, say, 3 years. Better have that home garden ready folks, hunger is such a sod and you’d have to take bets on whether the US would hold together in that situation, let alone the EU.
That simple. M.A.D. We can destroy them, they can destroy our (already very shaky) economies. The speedboats, cutting off US supply lines in Iraq (= surrender), supplying (probably stockpiled in anticipation) anti-tank and anti-aircraft handheld missiles to the Taliban (= a very big loss), etc are just icing on the cake and add insult to self induced injury.
And this is the good case, as for the worst case ... well at least all those nukes going off will solve global warming and over population ;)
Incredibly beneficial posting
Incredibly beneficial posting Excited for extra content articles in your web site.
Excellent post. I wish to
Excellent post. I wish to thank you for this informative read, I actually appreciate sharing this great post. Maintain up your work.
Add your comment