The Iranian threat
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was interviewed by John Podesta about U.S. global leadership. Topics included Libya, the Middle East, and Africa. She also talked about the need to build U.S. economy through innovation and education. In her remarks she also spoke about the alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabia ambassador to the U.S.
Pie Chart
Also, I found this PhD dissertation regarding Iran. It's very eye opening, and the link is disabled for twitter.
Do read Iran: Détente or Destruction? Hawks "Destruction of Course"
Amazingly detailed analysis of the Iran/Israel Nuclear history. Although written in 2005, little has changed other than the Iranian win achieved by the US taking out or reducing power of two of its top contenders in the region: Saddam and The Taliban
Humanitarian and Geopolitical Implications of Iran's Pursuit of Nuclear Capacity A Negotial Approach
There's a lot of "Iranian All Options on the Table" drum beating going on......Again!
For the wonks among us, here's a tip to improve speed reading this document. Mac user here, btw. I open the doc, click on Edit, click on find, and enter a word to search.
Again, this is a Doctoral Dissertation; however, it is deeply researched and uses a wide and in-depth list of reference materials to support the assertions and suggestions.
I enjoyed this paper because it is devoid of dogma and doctrines although it could be argued that, because it is an Italian PhD candidate, it might be skewed.
Here are some of the highlights I found.
First searched the dissertation for "Israeli nuclear"; results
Moreover, even if Iran had the weapon, it will not be able to compete with the huge Israeli nuclear arsenal, and consequently, its second strike capability. Furthermore, some Iranian policymakers believe that nuclear weapons are not an effective deterrent against Israel and its possible attacks.
Iran is endowed with other deterrence instruments that, apparently, are more efficient and less risky, as Hezbollah. These deterrents are not operational against the US, and therefore the only deterrent against Washington might be the nuclear weapon, but relations with the US can still be improved, and in that case disposing of nuclear weapons would be useless again.
Some miscellaneouos nuggets that point problems for Isreal striking Iran's nuclear facilities:
Destroying nuclear facilities by air attacks is more difficult to Israel than to the US. Moreover, in Iran lives a Jewish community of about 25,000 Israelis that might be put in danger by any operation. Page 67
Is there any precedent of an Israel strategic attack? Yes.
There are some precedents that can show how Israel is seriously considering an attack on Iran.
In 1981 Israel attacked an Iraqi nuclear plant. The US was not informed, and a formal protest followed.
In September 2007 Israel attacked a presumed nuclear site in Syria, again without informing the US. Bombers flew over Turkey, which does not necessary mean to attack Syria, but might be useful in a future operation against Iran.
In June 2008 Israel has deployed a huge operation in the Mediterranean Sea, employing more than 100 F-15 and F-16 airplanes. These airplanes flew for a range of 1400 kilometers, which is exactly the distance between Israel and Iranian nuclear sites. It must be considered that the dimension of such a long lasting simulation requires the US approval.
Dissertation's conclusion of the consequences for an Israeli strike, Page 68:
Should Israel respond with a reappraisal, the whole defensive machine will be used, not excluding nuclear weapons.
Israeli flies over Iraq would require US authorization, and such an action would cause a reaction from Europe and the Muslim world that would condemn Israel’s attempt to solve the problem on its own. Long term relations with the Arab world would definitely be compromised.
The dissertation makes a really good case for Détente, which most of us would conclude off of the top of our heads. Here's the papers Conclusion (emphasis mine):
There is no reason why elements that work in any negotiation should not work in negotiations between the West and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
However, even though a real negotiation was eventually carried out, and though the two sides were really concerned about the outcome, an agreement might not be found.
The above guidelines cannot guarantee productive contacts and successful results.
Insertion mine, from Page 116. Example: Perception of the past can be put aside if some larger interest has to be met, but underestimate the counterpart’s past cad lead to a rise in hostility.
Perhaps the most important feature to consider is the behaviour of Western countries that should avoid any post-colonial imperialistic attitude.
These depend mostly on the skills of the negotiators and on the guidelines provided by their governments. To define carefully what is successful and productive in such a negotiation is fundamental.
In the short term, as abovementioned, sitting at the table with a strong preparation about the counterpart, but free from accumulated rancor and rhetoric would be extremely productive.
In the medium term the outlined principles should be applied, as to create the confidence atmosphere that might lead to a long lasting settlement.
In the end, if efforts were made in order to develop dialogue, the risk of a deadlock, or what is worse, of a war, can be avoided.
The change required in the relation between the West and the Middle East is one of the great changes of our century. It is, however, a very long path, but the main players have to change the game, first.
“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”42
If for no other reason, I highly recommend the referenced documents for the above dissertation.
But that was 2005. This is now: Consensus War: Libya Was the Off-Broadway Show
Knock me down and call me stupid, but does anyone think we can achieve a concensus with Arab countries to help attack Iran for another regime change?
Oh wait, Saudi Arabia could be:
In a notification to Congress, expected to be submitted this week or next, the administration will authorize the Saudis to buy as many as 84 new F-15 fighters, upgrade 70 more, and purchase three types of helicopters—70 Apaches, 72 Black Hawks and 36 Little Birds, officials said. U.S. officials are discussing a potential $30 billion package to upgrade Saudi Arabia's naval forces. Talks are also underway to expand Saudi Arabia's ballistic-missile defenses. The U.S. is encouraging the Saudis to buy systems known as THAAD—Terminal High Altitude Defense—and to upgrade its Patriot missiles to reduce the threat from Iranian rockets. U.S. officials said it was unclear how much this package would be worth.
It appears we have been selling lots of planes
In an exclusive June 2006 interview, Israeli Air Force (IAF) chief procurement officer Brigadier-General Ze’ev Snir told Israel’s Globes publication that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was a key part of their IAF recapitalization plans, and that Israel intends to buy over 100 of the fighters to replace their F-16s over time.
The pieces needed to play war are in place. Especially the drones. I wonder if the Iranian radar can spot these?
All we need is justification. And that appeared this week. In fact, to justify Israel's ire, we now learn that
Iranian plot included Israeli embassy in Argentina
It is really difficult for this wonk to wrap my head around the possibility that a 56 year old used car salesman living in Texas could tap into Drug Cartel money to pay The US Stinger $100,000 with promises to come up with an additional $1.4 million.
Oh, and include the Israeli Embassy in Argentina.
Here's CNNs report:
Friend: Man accused in Saudi plot is more 'Mr. Bean than 007'
There are lots of allegations that this man was a bar fly. Is it possible that The Sting Department could search for those with Iranian dual citizenship to find a bar fly to set up?
Well, here's the situation according to Hillary Clinton:
Her comments are very revealing. She doesn't start speaking until minute 4:05.
In short, to maintain dominance in the Middle East, the US and Israel must diminish any/all dominance of Iran.
Iran's leaders have done much in the way of hateful rhetoric and nuclear development to bring this on themselves. We all know that two bullies on the playground will have to face off eventually.
My question is: Can we do so without harming hundreds of thousands of Iranian women and children?
The sanctions we placed on Iraq are reported to have caused the deaths of half a million of children.
With this information, can we avoid doing this again?
It's the 21st Century. Is it possible that the cave man survival response of Dominance can be retired?
The dissertation is clear that the parties have to come to the table and talk. Page 83:
Detente and Dominance
Negotiation is a process that is made by two or more parties, aimed at coordinating themselves against a common issue.
Their scope should be the creation of extra value.
This value will enrich and characterize the relationship, and will consequently spillover in the two parties’ satisfaction.
What has emerged, by the behaviour of the two sides, in the last few years, is the strong will of pressing the opponents in order to reduce its power of intervention in the issue.
This is not the right mindset to solve a problem.
The negotiation so far shows many mistakes that might be adjusted to find the right way to deal with the problem.
These mistakes are worth to be analyzed, as to define what should be set to put into action a viable negotiation framework.
The first step, however, should be an examination of thecurrent relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Western countries.
82
The Current Situation
When we consider the Iranian counterpart, we generally talk of Western countries, or EU-3 + the US. Within this group there are different positions, and interests are not always matching each others.
Moreover, some players, like the US, prefer a harder line, but, in the whole, the four countries can be taken all together as one side.
The Checklist
According to R. Fisher and S. Brown,33 any relationship can be examined using elements of a checklist, through which recognizing problems affecting a relationship.
The checklist is made by eight points (goal, general strategy, emotions, level of understanding, frequency of communications, reliability, persuasion, mutual acceptance).
We will try to avoid schemes, by preferring a discourse on the matter.
As far as the goal the parties want to achieve, it can be argued that both of them are trying to win the relationship, instead of improving it.
Their differences have been used to extend the gap between them, and the process for working together in the long term has never been directly faced.
The two parties have a general strategy that is applicable in the negotiation.
Serious substantive issues affect the ability of working together, and are not faced directly.
The accumulation of old problems may lead to a block in the dialogue.
Thirdly, the balance between rationality and emotions not always is well managed.
Public statements of both parties show that grandstanding, political theater, and theatrical gestures are seldom preferred to professional behaviour.
The Cave Man Aggression, posturing, and sabor rattling has to stop.
THE MIDDLE EAST REQUIRES GROUP THERAPY to heal the machismo that is presently putting the entire world in danger. Mediators not testorone powered negotiators.
How about an auditorium of CHILDREN from each country? They would definitely come up with solutions.
The blow back for generations to come depends on how we handle today.
DARE WE DREAM!
Can the billions citizens from the US, Europe, Israel, Iran, the Middle East, and all other countries throughout the world stave the few neo-con hawks' hands that might bomb Iran again? or sanction Iran's women and childrens' survival?
And if not, how many millions of people will feel justified in retaliating against the Western countries?
Aren't we at greater risk from the "Lone Wolf" than we are from a country being stupid enough to launch an attack against any Western country? Do we really want to inspire more Lone Wolves?
Don't we have enough boogey men?
Can Israel, the US, and Iran rise above playground bullying tactics?