Roger L. Simon: Speaking Out on Iran

President Bush spoke out on Iran today, concerned as should be the Mullahs are exploiting a strange gap in the timeframe they negotiated in their deal with the European 3 (Britain, Germany and France):

Talking to reporters here after a meeting with Japan's prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, Mr. Bush cited reports that Iran was racing to produce uranium hexaflouride, a gas that can be enriched into bomb fuel. "They're willing to speed up processing of materials that could lead to a nuclear weapon," Mr. Bush said.

Carolyn Glick has an interesting anaylsis of where the situation may be heading. Also don't miss Gary Metz's Regime Change Iran blog. I check it daily.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I know that Bush and Blair must have discussed this and I also know that Bush has said the Iranians will not have a nuclear bomb. Do the Btis really believe this latest deal will work or are they just trying to exhaust all options? According to Glick this latest deal makes it more likely not less that the Iranians will develop a nuke.

Do we have the kind of intelligence we need to know what is happening there and do the Brits doubt Bush means what he says?

I heard someone say that the US can not afford another military invasion. But I don't think invasion would be the means by which the US would deal with this. A few missiles might be though.

I agree with Glick: Israel will not permit Iranian nuclear weapons. Period. And I believe the US will at minimum support and assist whatever action is deemed necessary. We probably could get a lot more accomplished if we didn't have to spend so much time pulling European knives out of our back.

The problem with any kind of military action against Iran is that innocent people will die. This has the potential of turning a largely pro-American population against the US. This is exactly what the regime is hoping for.

A better solution would be to support a popular uprising by the Iranian people against the Mullahs of Iran. Michael Ledeen has been calling for this for a long time, but time is running out. "Faster please."

This could also be supported by a naval blockade of the Straits of Hormuz. Such a blockade will cripple the Iranian economy and bring down the regime.

Problems: Iran would consider a blockade an act of war. The EU fears a blockade will lead to oil rising to $100 a barrel and they do not have the oil reserves that the US has.

The US administration is preparing to deal with this threat. Make no mistake about it; the US is going to act. Letï¿½s hope the people of Iran act first.

More on the MEK:

Names:
- Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK)
- Sazman-e Mojahedin-e Khalq-e Iran
- Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO)
- National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA)
- People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI)
- Muslim Iranian Student's Society
- National Council of Resistance (NCR)
- National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)
Source: Federation of American Scientists at http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/mek.htm
It has some old discussion & some links.

“French Police Detain Iranians to End Self-Immolation,” AP via Fox News, June 19, 2003
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89901,00.html

Australian raid, unconfirmed reports it was on MEK people:
“Iraq connection to house raids in Australia,” Radio Australia News, March 16, 2003

At the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (in Israel) Website at http://www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/orgdet.cfm?orgid=24

66______________________
Originally formed in the 1960’s as an armed Islamic opposition movement against Shah..., the MKO fought in the guerrilla operations that forced his overthrow. However due to its radical socialist ideology the organization was cut out of the power structure built by the ayatollahs....

The group turned against the new government and continues to wage an armed struggle against the Iranian state from Iraq, which provides the group with financial and logistical support and military equipment. ....
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯99

They operated from within Iraq with Saddam’s support for decades, so were probably infiltrated by his people, too, &, as I recall, Iraqi officials have said this. Pentagon, EU, alike classify the MKO as terrorist. Waged war for decades.

Has this islamo-marxist terrorist cult reformed itself? It seems hard to believe. Daniel Pipes has wanted to use them. See “[Mujahedeen-e Khalq:] A Terrorist U.S. Ally?” by Daniel Pipes and Patrick Clawson, New York Post, May 20, 2003 at
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1100

I wish I could find all the materials I had at one time. Some Congressman on his Website compared the MEK (or MKO or whatever) to the Khmer Rouge—said it would be like that if they got into power. I have seen Iranian reform blogs which said that they hate the MEK, regard them as traitors, like a thousand John Walker Lindhs.

A key thing, & I haven’t been able to dig this up again, is that a while back I read that the MEK had previously provided us with important info on Iranian nuclear development, info which proved to be correct.

This assumes a level of omnipotence on the part of Israel which probably does not exist. There are means available to the Iranians to hide the materials and they have probably utilized them.

This has the potential of turning a largely pro-American population against the US. This is exactly what the regime is hoping for.

The problem is that we wish to accomplish two different goals and the two goals are not compatible. We want to stop Iran's nuclear program and we want to replace the mullocracy with a democracy. There's one little inconvenient fact overlooked in all these discussions: having a nuclear program is enormously popular in Iran, even though the Mullahs are not.

Removing Iran's nuclear program (assuming that is even possible, which I doubt) will make us or the Israelis or both extremely unpopular. We will end up making enemies of the people of that country for a hundred years.

Perhaps the administration is thinking of regime change more than they are thinking of stopping the nukes.

I don't know but it would seem to me that if the people of that country really want to see a change in their politcal system it would dawn on them that a nuclear program will make that less likely, not more likely.

My own personal take on it is that the administration is baffled. They don't have an answer to what to do about Iran any more than I do. There probably isn't any answer. I've asked several times on this very blog what people want to do but I have never received much of an answer. What, exactly, does Michael Ledeen mean by "faster, please"? Is he advocating a direct war with Iran, or is he just hoping to back into it surreptitiously? And if we do indeed go to war with Iran, is it really feasible that we will be able to avoid the draft?

My take on Bush (subject to much revision because I don't know what the heck I'm talking about) is that Samuel's view of him is much closer to reality than the propaganda put out by the Democrats. By which I mean, I think Bush really is a compromiser and a guy who wants to get along and really isn't the war-monger he's been made out to be. Bush may end up being much more of a dove on Iran than many people have led themselves to believe. I don't think Bush has the stomach for a nuclear attack on Teheran. Since about half the American citizenry has no stomach for a smart-weapons attack on Fallujah, I'm pretty sure a nuclear attack on Iran would be political suicide.

There are NO good options for dealing with a nuclear-armed Iran, other than containment, which is the best of a bad lot:

1. Pre-emptive nuclear attack will completely resolve the situation, at a catastropic cost to us. We would become international pariahs. Serious anti-US alliances would spring up. Nations would refuse to sell us oil, and would cash out outstanding bonds. Our economy would be devastated. Also, other nations would revoke their status-of-forces agreements, and would eject our armed forces from our overseas bases. The only way this would become tenable would be if Iran attacked us or an ally with a nuke first.

2. Conventional attack fails due to nuclear reprisal. A single defensive nuclear employment by Iran could wipe out a good portion of conventional forces.

3. Agitating for revolution may be feasible, but is very low probability, due to Iran's internal secret police.

That leaves us with containment. Geographically, Pakistan, India, Israel, China, Russia, and Europe can cover Iran with nuclear warheads. Defensively, we can try to get missile defense up and provide it to Israel first. However, this won't defend against a suicide bomber with a suitcase nuke detonating at a checkpoint by the Wall.

His alternatives maybe a change in regime in Iran in which case nukes will be tolerated, an attack on Iran by Israel which could stop the nuke program but get Eurabia in an uproar, an attack by one of our subs, or a blackade and sanctions in the hopes that it will stop Tehran or help bring about the demise of the government.

I do think Bush wants to help out Blair and give him the chance to come up with something but I think this deal is a lot like the deal Clinton came up with for NK in 93 and will have the same effect.

Maybe Europe needs to fail, maybe that is even the point. Let them try to deal with the situation like civilized people and let the Iranians lie to them. Somethings just have to be experienced to be believed.

I know one thing, they try to nuke Israel and Israel will take a lot of people with them and some of them might be Europeans.

To the best of my recollection, Iran has clearly, repeatedly, and publicly stated it will use its nuclear weapons, once obtained, to destroy Israel.

Every thinking person knows that Israel is, in effect, the front line in the "War on Terror."

So either the Mad Mullahs are blowing smoke (in which case how does one take seriously any of their proclamations?), or they are quite serious.

If the latter, how can one possbly justify allowing them to attain nuclear status?

"My own personal take on it is that the administration is baffled. They don't have an answer to what to do about Iran any more than I do. There probably isn't any answer. I've asked several times on this very blog what people want to do but I have never received much of an answer. What, exactly, does Michael Ledeen mean by "faster, please"? Is he advocating a direct war with Iran, or is he just hoping to back into it surreptitiously? And if we do indeed go to war with Iran, is it really feasible that we will be able to avoid the draft?"

It's not only feasible, it's crucial - bringing back the draft is absolutely the best way I can think of for us to lose the entire War on Terror.

If our fearless leaders had only raised the enlistment caps two years ago, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But we can, and I believe we must, raise the caps in the very near future. And we'll need to retask some of the guys babysitting Iraq (which makes sense, since knocking over the mullahs will dry up the backing for some of the "insurgents") and Europe.

Because something even worse than an attack on Israel is in the offing. If the mullahs get nuclear invulnerability, they'll decide that they can stage repeated conventional terrorist attacks with impunity, right here in the Great Satan as well as in the lesser Satans. And unless we're ready to lose a city, we won't really be able to do jack about it. You can also kiss a free Iraq goodbye; the place will be flooded with "insurgents" faster than you can say "North Vietnam" and we (and they) will be completely screwed.

I think the mad mullahs used the phrase "vomit the Zionist entity from the region" for what they would do if they had a nuclear weapon.

And then they said they would get a bomb if they damn well felt like it. And then they said they would not.. would.. would not.. whatever.

There you have it.. they will or will not get the bomb and if they do they will nuke Israel but nobody has the right to interfere with them and diplomacy works when dealing with religious fanatics. usually.

Realistically, what do the Europeans have to lose? It's not like Iran is going to nuke Paris. This is one way for the French to get rid of that "shitty little country".

Mad mullahs? Where is the evidence that they are suicidal? We should make sure the Iranian leadership knows that it will be targeted for death. A number of weapons will be pointed directly at their work areas and homes. These religious thugs may be relatively indifferent concerning the lives of the typical Iranian---but they worry about their own.

I agree with David. The mullahs may not care about the people of Iran and are more than happy to sacrifice many of them. They may talk about the glories of martyrdom, but when it comes to themselves I don't see them with a ticket to Paradise in their back pockets rushing head first into death like the boys of Iran did in the human wave assaults.

As for containment: if Iran was your typical "rational" player we could assume that the cold-war type of containment (threaten massive nuclear retaliation for any attack by Iran) would work quite well. But we are not working with a rational player or at least we can't assume we are. The Iranian governments sponsorship of terrorism is well known. Of any state, including the NoKos, they are the most likely to sponsor and supply large scale, possibly nuclear, terrorist attacks in the U.S. Presumably they would use a lack of evidence to deny involvement. It seems possible that one approach might be to warn Iran that a nuclear attack on our soil would automatically trigger a disproportionate nuclear attack on Iran by the U.S. - shoot first ask questions later. I don't like this option either but maybe it is the least worst of all.

Meanwhile we can support the dissidents in Iran as Ledeen has very vocally advocated (not military action by the U.S.). But I think the Iranian secret police and affiliated thugs are much more powerful than most people think.

Having cleared my head after walking the Very Large Dog, I have some more ideas on containment. How about a Cuban Missile Crisis type solution: an U.S. engineered embargo of Iranian oil until they accede to international demands.

How? I am unclear on some of this but I think Iran is now surrounded by unfriendly neighbors. I remember reading we have developed some formal security arrangments with Caspian Sea countries. Countries to the west are Afghanistan and Iran. Countries to the east are Turkey and Iraq. To the south is the Persian Gulf. A naval blockade would work but I am not sure whether Iran exports via pipeline (through Turkey perhaps?) Obviously we have the opportunity to deal with that through diplomatic efforts.

What about the inevitable rise in oil prices - why would our "allies" go along with that? Iran exports 2.2 million barrels a day. We have a strategic oil reserve of 670 million and rising, enough to completely replace lost Iranian exports for a year if necessary.

What if Iran declares war? Iran's has no offensive capability. I suppose they could launch strikes against military assets in the Persian Gulf but our counterstrikes would take care of that pretty quickly. We can basically sit and watch the Iranian economy grind to a halt, create unrest in the streets.

Would the Iranians take to the streets to protest U.S. economic aggression or would they protest there own government's nuclear program? I don't know but I think the latter. Some have suggested that the Iranian people have a certain affection for their nuclear weapons program. I would like to see the evidence for that. Also this provides a good opportunity for covert operations to funnel dissension in our direction. (God I hope those covert operatives exist by now...)

Finally there is the big Kahuna himself - GW. I think the man has a proven track record of not flinching from nasty solutions. The world might hate him but they shouldn't doubt his resolve and an oil embargo is a much more pleasant alternative than a military action.

November 20, 2004: Speaking Out on Iran

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post