The news story of the century continues to evade the front page of the New York Times, yet it persists nonetheless, chewing at the underpinnings of our civilization---"Khatami: Iran begins uranium enrichment despite IAEA warning:":http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_22-9-2004_pg1_8
Khatami says Iran will continue its nuclear programme. Shrugging off a 35-nation ultimatum, Iran revealed on Tuesday that it had started converting tons of raw uranium as part of technology that could be used to make nuclear arms.
The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) board of governors passed a resolution on Saturday specifically demanding that Iran freeze all uranium enrichment -- including conversion -- and expressing alarms of Tehran’s plans to start the process.
Describing his country as a victim of “pressures imposed by the United States,” Iranian Vice President Reza Aghazadeh said that of the more than 40 tons of uranium being mined for enrichment “some (already) has been used.”
President Bush made a stirring speech to the U.N. recently. It was about security, Iraq, and exporting democracy in an ideal world. He said nothing about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Iran is now a neighbor---Americans flank it on two borders. Iran’s nuclear business is our business.
The President panegyrized the UN with assuring words:
History will honor the high ideals of this organization. The charter states them with clarity: "To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war," "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights," "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom."
What is perplexing about these times is how far out we have skated upon thin ice, and yet the comforts of 20th century platitudes and rhetoric still define our official world view. Surely, President Bush is aware of the stakes in Iran and North Korea. He must know the pieces of the nuclear proliferation puzzle better than most. Yet, in spite of boldly blazing into the heart of darkness, we impose upon ourselves a tentative policy in the face of our civilization's destruction. At the doorstep of the abyss, we waver. We consult fair-weather friends, taking refuge in the language of diplomacy and consensus, as though we are waiting for the moment to seize upon us. Yet, this
is the moment. This is the time---right now.
Preemption in an era of nuclear proliferation may be folly if not acted upon decisively. What realistically can be accomplished, and for how long? At best, preemption buys only time. The nuclear genie has long left the bottle, lurking in many scattered places---too many places to account for. It seems unlikely that a nuclear event can be forestalled indefinitely. So in an era of preemption, we must look at this moment in history as a bridge to another epoch. We live now in that moment between two worlds---the one before 9/11, and the one that will follow the unthinkable. Preemption will be a short moment in our history, whose utility will diminish quickly. It will likely only slow proliferation, not abate it.
Preemption is only a temporary policy, while it is feasible at all. It may already be dead, in a practical sense, as we defer to familiar protocols. Dithering on the border of Iran, the President proclaims hollow commendation for the UN, an organization he must actually despise. Between ourselves and a terrorist’s nuclear assembly line stands the UN, the EU, our own self-doubt and petty politics. High-minded UN-speak doesn’t gel with preemption, which boils down to defensively saving our bacon through offensive means. There’s nothing fancy about it; nothing that can make it sound digestible to bureaucracies predisposed for averaged policy. It doesn’t fit in the Charter, and never will. Consensus is fine for writing the prose of international laws that are easily broken; but preemption is the antithesis of a broad international consensus.
During this period, we should consider how we can prepare ourselves for the hard times that we face. Preemption’s true opportunity is only the time it secures for planning the next stage of our civilization. Who among us inhabits that world with more than trepidation and despair?
For a LWR, you generally want to enrich the fuel to about 3.5%. Are they enriching the fuel above this level or not?
President Bush made a stirring speech to the U.N. recently.
I thought it was pretty boring. And it can be rather reasonably argued that by bogging the U.S. down in Iraq, the Bush administration has lost much of its freewill with regard to Iran and other countries.
Gary, Iran's aims are not exactly a secret, except to those who refuse to see.
So let's bypass your red herring and go straight to the heart of your blather. Let's imagine that the U.S. had not invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein still rules there. Iran is in exactly the same position. Kindly explain what additional options the U.S. would have that it does not have now, and why they would be more feasible.
One has but to admire the green head-banded faithful in the background and their stiff-armed salutes.
The point of convergence between the extreme left, the islamicists and the fascist right?
Can world domination be within reach? O wonderous day....
Gary,
Your question is fair. It should be broadened, however. What if the 'international community' had actually acted responsibly and come to the US for support in removing Saddam's threat? They certainly believed he was a threat as much as the US did. What if the 'international community'---a term made meaningless by their self-interested intransigence and profiteering from the sanctions regime---actually put security and strength before their utopian socialist ideals? Iraq would be a different place, and would have been so since 1991.
Gary,
When I want to figure out a military problem the first thing I look at is a map. Evidence points to the fact that Joe has done just that.
Maps are a key ingredient of military success.
Now just to refresh your memory. Iran is between Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a clue.
Gary:
Light-water Reactors need 3.5% to 5% enrichment. Current 'fad' is toward higher enrichment, and a partial burn-down of the plutonium created in energy generation. Kind of a "half-breeder".
But that isn't the point.
The point is, that there are three kinds of "first generation" atomic bombs (those that don't rely on fusion or Teller/Ulam 2-stage principles): 100% Oralloy [highly enriched U-235] (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Oralloy), uranium-plutonium mixed metal, and 100% plutonium.
Oralloy bombs are the least technologically demanding, requiring about 1.8 to 2.5 critical masses of U-235 in a simple 'gun' arrangement. They are HEAVY though. 100 kg of uranium [typical] and 500+ kg of explosives. Another 500 to 1000 kg of "casing, other stuff" to make it all work right.
100% Plutonium bombs are substantially smaller, with the smallest being only a 150 kg to 200 kg for a 20 KTon yield. A lot more technology goes into making them, but they use easily-obtainable plutonium from nuclear reactors instead of U235.
Which do you think the Iranians would want to tip their Shihab-3 missiles? A conventional 500 lb bomb, a nasty 500 lb nerve-agent bomb, a devastatingly nasty 500 lb bio-WMD, or a catastrophic 500 lb [20KT] nuke? Guessing nuke, the only 500 lb entrant to the who-wins-the-warhead competition are 100% plutonium devices. None of the others are light weight enough for the Shihabs to carry.
GoatGuy
Unfortunately, GWB has already burnt all his political capital on the Iraq bonfire. After the non-appearance of WMD and the failure of the Iraqi to welcome liberators with open arms, do you think he'd dare the political firestorm to engage Iran or even worse, North Korea? Do you think congress could be persuaded to do so? Do you think the American public could be so persuaded? Iraq's only acceptable because so few have been called upon to make real sacrifice.
No, we're just going to have to get used to a world with a nuclear Iran and NK.
Tom West:
The US may, just may, be willing to "get used to" a nuclear Iran. (And looks almost certain to do so with NK)
But Israel? I doubt it very much.
And if Israel informs Washington it is going to strike at all costs, the equation of risks and consequences alters markedly.
IMHO that point looks roughly 12 months away.
Before then, look for a stedy increase in tensions: likely major increases in insurgentcy and terrorism in Iraq around the elections there (and also weeks prior to US elections, maybe); the IAEA and "Euro 3" approaches coming to crisis point (at UNSC?); increasingly overt messages from Israel and the US to Iran.
When the terminal point arrives - i.e. if the mullahs are not overthrown or have a sudden attack of sanity - things are likely to happen fast.
Tom, I'll ask you the same question I asked Gary. Assume Saddam had been left in place, no Iraq invasion, and we were in the same boat with Iran now.
What concrete options would the USA have that are not available to it now? And why would they be more feasible?
Well, basically you only get 1 intervention that fails badly. After that, nobody believes you any more.
GWB (or anyone else) can't go in saying thatHe already tried it with Iraq and blew his credibility. Now this time, at least 2 out of 3 are true, but it's too late. Nobody will believe him. (To be honest, the one he had to get politicians to believe was point 1, and that's long gone.)
An invasion or substantial intervention in Iran or NK is not going to come without significant sacrifice. As a politician hoping to be re-elected someday, would you want to have your career on the line trying to sell it to the now jaded American public?
Tom---Your points are well taken. Incredibility dogs the administration's preemption policy due to perceived and real failures in Iraq. It probably cuts both ways, however.
If today Saddam was still in power---still thumbing his nose at the West (both the UN and the US), milking billions for his hacks from the Oil-for-Food Program, funding Palestinian terror families, and probably working towards some kind of WMD program---the credibility of the West would at this point be pretty low. At this late date, "states" like Iran could rest assured that no one would do anything, and with good reason.
It might be one of those situations where we're damned no matter what policy was carried out.
Expanding on Cicero’s points to Tom West:
If we hadn’t taken down Saddam, the credibility of the UNSC in general and France in particular would be incredibly high. Namely, they would have demonstrated the ability to conclusively thwart the United States, and they would have demonstrated tolerance of dictators who disregard the explicit ultimatums of the Security Council. In short they would have made plain their indifference to the proliferation of WMD and their intolerance of any effective action to halt that proliferation.
If anyone believes that in this alternate climate the Khan nuclear network would have been rolled up, that Libya would have rolled over, that Iran would be less intransigent and more vulnerable to deterrence, they will have a heavy burden of proof.
Bush has burned political capital? If the EU and the UNSC is truly serious about proliferation, why is US political capital an issue? Is proliferation in violation of treaty an issue for action by the UN, or not? Is it a threat to the peace, or isn’t it? Why is action, or the credible threat of action, a favor to the interests of the US, and not in the interests of the UN itself? And if the threat posed by a nuclear Iran is seen as a threat only to the US (and/or Israel), and something to be triangulated and manipulated, then where is the basis for considering our erstwhile allies (France et al) to be our true friends?
France threw its political capital on the bonfire 18 months ago.
"As a politician hoping to be re-elected someday, would you want to have your career on the line trying to sell it to the now jaded American public?"
IIRC, Amendment XXII forbids a person to be elected President more than twice. If Bush wins re-election in November, he must be reckoned to be at the pinnacle of his political career, with a sharp drop-off after 20 January 2009; few ex-Presidents have gone back to lesser offices.
Since Bush would, on this theory, no longer have a career on the line, why would he not instead "go for broke"?
I'll add that an "intervention" in Iran as America's first priority, without allies who will base U.S. troops (because there would be none), and with Saddam Hussein's forces at your back, would have been... how to put this... rather more challenging than what has transpired in Iraq.
It also would have risked alienating a population that was on balance favourably disposed to America (Iran's), and doing so in a very large country that has also been the #1 supporter of global terrorism for some time and so has many cadres to call on even after conventional military defeat.
As M. Simon put it, I can read a map. To crack Iran, you need a base next door with good supply lines and good communications coverage into Iran, in order to do much of anything. Which means Afghanistan ain't it.
Tom's most salient point, however, has been missed. That is the fact that winning this calls for real sacrifice, and serious mobilization. He wonders if America is prepared to do this, and he is not alone.
We knew Iraq would be difficult, and it is even more difficult than expected (partly because the USA repeated its Vietnam mistake and left hostile borders wide open for enemy states to use). This border policy was a calculated risk, taken in the belief that porpous borders might also create instability and change in Iran as people came in contact with the Americans, Iraqi Shi'a, clergy like Sistani et. al., and returned home. The risk has not panned out. C'est la Guerre.
The question that can and should be asked now, and it's a totally valid one, is why in the 3 years since 9/11 no contingency forces have been created and made available, in order to give the USA global freedom of action if Iraq did not go according to plan (which is the default expectation in any war).
Why are 2 divisions of civil affairs and MP troops not on hand right now to relieve front line soldiers? Why weren't additional regular divisions created (1 Marine, 1 Army), and why weren't Americans asked to volunteer for the military in numbers after 9/11 to fill these divisions, as an important way of showing support? And just to ride a personal hobby horse here, why is there no American Foreign Legion with newly-minted experience in Africa (Liberia, Ivory Coast) and Bosnia, that could now move on to Sudan or be redeployed to northern Iraq?
Our present situation is not the consequence of events set in motion by decisions made in February of 2003. It is the consequence of events set in motion by decisions made in October of 2001.
Perhaps G-d does have a close relationship with George W. Bush, however, because the man has been gifted with an opposition whose main approach to the war appears to be the Spanish model of pre-emptive surrender. Pull out of Iraq. Act only if struck again, and only assuming you can figure out who the perpetrators are and offer court-level proof. Improve relations with Iran as it builds nukes and shelters al-Qaeda. Sign worthless agreements with North Korea so you can help finance their nuclear program and pretend it's not a problem.
Truly, a gift from G-d to George W. Bush. Not such a great gift to the rest of us, however, who wish for a better alternative and don't see one anywhere on the horizon.
I recommend G.F.Will's op-ed, in today's WP, which relates to this thread:
The Iran Dilemma
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43384-2004Sep22.html
It's a bit early in the century to be calling the "news story of the century," isn't it?
Addressing a few points:
if we hadn't done anything about Saddam... the credibility of the West would at this point be pretty low.
Okay, let me make my position clear. Fundamentally, the USA is the only country that really matters here. The EU is not capable of action on its own, and the UNSC has enough conflicting interests that it is not going to be able to act except in the most egregious of cases, which Iraq was not.
The only credibility that truly matters in extreme cases (which Iran and NK may soon be, and Iraq was not) is the credibility of the president with the American people and their representatives. And that is what GWB has used up.
Since Bush would, on this theory, no longer have a career on the line, why would he not instead "go for broke"?
Not Bush's career, the careers of the politicians that must support a war effort in order for it to be successful.
the man has been gifted with an opposition whose main approach to the war appears to be the Spanish model of pre-emptive surrender
To be honest, I doubt that had the Democrats been in power, much would be different in Afghanistan. However, I doubt Gore would have picked on Iraq. Whether he would have had (and whether GWB or JFK will have) the courage to face the real test in Iraq and NK is a completely open question. Certainly GWB's tax cuts, whether they helped the economy or not, did not psychologically prepare the populace as a "nation at war".
Politics demands that (as opposition) you differentiate yourself from your opponent or face elimination. The reality when gaining office is usually quite different.
That is the fact that winning this calls for real sacrifice, and serious mobilization.
I strongly suspect that the time to obtain great sacrifice from Americans on the basis of the 9/11 tragedy has been lost. It will now take a second disaster to mobilize the populace. And truly, efforts in Afghanistan and on the home front have much reduced the chance of a successful second strike, at least until America's guard relaxes a decade from now.
As I said, I'm pretty much assuming a nuclear Iran and NK. Whether Iran is pursuing this course because of events in Iraq (both threat and opportunity), I'm not going to guess.
I can't speak for anybody else, but I support the preemption of an Iranian nuclear threat. That's the main reason I'm supporting Bush. Kerry has lost the chance to convince me that he takes any of this seriously.
I alone don't supply much credibility for a proactive stance. Perhaps there are others that agree with me.
To answer the enrichment question, the IAEA caught traces of enrichment at the 36% level. This is far beyond normal peaceful use and should close the book on doubters.
As for the idea of Bush blowing credibility via mistakes in Iraq, that line doesn't work very well. Nations are sovereign and if France had an honest government when it came to Iran, they would act to prevent Iran's weapons program even if the US were curled up in a fetal position building fortress america. Ditto for the other hundred plus nations who have a scientific establishment sufficiently developed to make independent judgments. The US is uniquely important because it is these other nations that refuse to take up their responsibilities to take action without being cajoled into responsibility by the United States.
Lurker, et al---
Credibility is the key issue this fall. My vote for W is an inversion of the same cynical reasoning of my liberal friends, who are voting for Kerry: they vote for Kerry because he's not Bush. I'm voting for Bush because he's not Kerry.
I don't know how many readers of this blog would appreciate equivocation of the negatives oozing from left and right in this election. If you're a real conservative, Bush is anything but. Andrew Sullivan has covered that story quite thoroughly. If you're a liberal, Kerry is a sham.
Most voters are going to be single-issue voters, boiling down their decision to one issue: Which man will save my life? The genius of terrorism is that war has finally come home to America---to Americans at home. War is no longer an academic view of something taking place overseas. It's here. That focuses the mind.
I will admit that my vote for Bush is negative, because I am voting for what he is not: spineless, dithering and perplexed like Kerry. I would've much rather voted for a wartime president who was a committed, true-blue Democrat. I don't think Bush really believes in something as liberal as nation building. History forced his hand into that role---but I sense resistance on his part. A Democrat with credentials like Sen. Lieberman would've waged a real war, followed by real reconstructive nation-building. The kind like Truman oversaw.
I do wonder, at the end of every day: Is our political system structured and equipped with the means to stop the dark forces of its demise?
EXACTLY. I was thinking of these men, before I got to this part.
Some, on both the left and right, have postulated an eminent political restructuring. In that vein, I'd like to take the fiscally conservative pieces from the Republicans and the socially tolerant pieces from the Democrats, season with doses of classical liberalism and libertarianism, pour on big heaping helping of old fashioned American patriotism. That's a what I want.
Let me make it clear - the credibility that I speak of is not credibility with the international community - that is essentially irrelevant, given that the US has to go it alone.
It is the credibility of the president with the American people and their representives in both Senate and the House that Bush has (for the most part) lost. And that is what is needed for an intervention that would be both expensive in money, sacrifice and lives.
For example, can you imagine how many minutes GWB would last if he even hinted that gasoline might have to be rationed in order to be able to address the nuclear issue with Iran? In the absence of Iraq, I think he'd have had a decent shot at it. Now - no way...
Personally, I'm not American so I don't vote. I suspect that internationally both GWB and JFK will be indistinguishable. Neither can afford to be seen as transforming Iraq from an evil but essentially powerless state into a failed one. (And causing a million or so Iraqi deaths in the following civil war.) In all probability, neither will have the guts to take on Iran at this point. (Or be allowed to by the House and Senate.)
Fiscally, JFK won't be allowed to be as irresponsible as GWB, since any spending initiatives will have him labelled "tax and spend" and be squished. And to be honest, the idea that in preparation for time of war we need to have a big tax cut for the richest is a little to much for me. The whole thing plays too much like "let the poor pay for this war, especially in lives."
Joe Katzman,
So let's bypass your red herring and go straight to the heart of your blather.
Hmm, are you a tasty troll?
Marcus Cicero,
Your question is fair.
I appreciate the non-trollish response. :)
It should be broadened, however. What if the 'international community' had actually acted responsibly and come to the US for support in removing Saddam's threat?
You would have to first demonstrate that this was the "responsible" thing to do. In other words, your statement begs a condition that has not been established.
They certainly believed he was a threat as much as the US did.
They did?
What if the 'international community'---a term made meaningless by their self-interested intransigence and profiteering from the sanctions regime---actually put security and strength before their utopian socialist ideals?
What does socialism have to do with "profiteering?" And I take no issue with self-interest.
As opposed to the utopian Wilsonian ideals of President Bush? Pick your poison.
Iraq would be a different place, and would have been so since 1991.
Apparently this includes the U.S., because it was the Bush administration which chose not to push on Baghdad - which Bush pere justifies in his book.
GoatGuy,
Which do you think the Iranians would want to tip their Shihab-3 missiles?
Depends on their needs, which you yourself have pointed out. So I'm not quite sure why you asked me the question. Or was it meant to be explicitly rhetorical?
John Farren,
But Israel? I doubt it very much.
As I understand it Iran's nuclear facilities are spreadout (they aren't as dumb as the Iraqis apparently were) and are at the limit of Isreal's strike capability (or maybe even slightly beyond it). I think this argues for U.S. help if Israel were to strike.
TM Lutas,
Wow, someone actually dealt with the issue I raised instead of being a jackass; thanks for the enrichment information. :)
Lurker, et. al.,
I won't be voting for either Bush or Kerry. I don't vote for the lesser of two evils, since that only, well perpetuates one or the other of those evils.
Say whatever else you want to, it still boils down to this:
Iran's October Surprise -- I Told You So!"
by Trent Telenko at August 11, 2004 09:21 AM
The reality of Russian pre-enriched unranium feed stock for its centrifuges means that Iran is months, and by that I mean less than a year and perhaps as few as six months, away from having weapons grade highly enriched uranium for nuclear devices.
What was learned when Libya turned "states evidence" and revealed the wide spread dispersal of Chinese fission warhead designs via Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan, means these devices will be operational missile warheads of a proven design.
SHARON WILL ACT AGAINST THAT THREAT!
Of couse, Sharon will, by air.
Then America will follow, on the ground.