Saturday, January 21, 2006
Chirac's doctrine, Iran's confession, and the meaning of it all
President Jacques Chirac has dropped a political bombshell by threatening to retaliate with nuclear strikes against any state found to be responsible for a large-scale terrorist attack on France.
In the biggest shift in French nuclear doctrine for 40 years, M. Chirac revealed that the force de frappe - the French nuclear deterrent - had already been reconfigured to allow it to destroy the "power centres" of any state which sponsored a terrorist assault.
Chirac did not mention any particular state that he thought might sponsor a terrorist attack, and he did not seem to discuss terrorist attacks that are not sponsored by a state.
Today, Iran -- which seems to have ruined a pair of underwear on realizing that somebody might blame it for sponsoring terrorism -- became the only country to denounce Chirac's speech:
Iran on Saturday termed as 'unacceptable' remarks made by French President Jacques Chirac on France's right to use nuclear weapons against countries that carried out a terrorist attack against it.
Er, if Iran isn't a state sponsor of terrorism, why should it care? You don't see Iceland, Ireland, Israel or Iraq denouncing Chirac, and at least two of those countries have plenty of motive to yell back at France. Iran's protest is like the leader of the Crips complaining about "three strikes" sentencing rules. If this isn't a confession, it is at least a recognition that somebody might confuse Iran for a state sponsor of terrorism.
And then there's this:
'The French president has increased ambiguities and fears by the world public opinion towards all world states possessing nuclear weapons,' foreign ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Assefi was quoted as saying by news agency ISNA.
Well, then, Iran wouldn't want to be lumped in with all those nasty and scary countries that possess nuclear weapons, would it?
Here's the best part:
Assefi added that human beings' logic, religious beliefs and humanitarian values could in no way accept production and use of weapons of mass destruction.
Silly Jacques, and silly us. How could we possibly think that Islam could permit the production and use of weapons of mass destruction?
Commentary
The press is describing Chirac's speech in domestic political terms, which I think is probably too shallow. Sure, Jacques Chirac is as perfidious as Western politicians come these days, but the leaders of nuclear powers simply have not screwed around with doctrine to notch a few points in the public opinion polls. I would be shocked if even Chirac did this, and believe that the typical reporter reaches for the political angle because it is easier to understand than the geopolitical considerations.
Apart from suckering Iran into its risible protest, what does it all mean?
First, Chirac did not limit France's nuclear retaliation to terrorist attacks by atomic weapons. Theoretically, any mass casualty attack, such as those on September 11, would trigger the doctrine. Having declared the doctrine, if there is a mass-casualty attack that can be tied to a state the president of France will be hard-pressed not to retaliate with nuclear weapons.
Second, it is interesting that Chirac does not seem to have included terrorist attacks that are not "state sponsored" in his doctrinal shift. If al Qaeda or one of its ideological affiliates detonates a bomb in Marseilles, Chirac is as out of moves as anybody unless he can demonstrate some link between al Qaeda and some state.
Third, he has certainly created the conditions for al Qaeda to frame one of the "apostate regimes" that it considers its primary enemy. Ordinarily, al Qaeda loudly takes credit for its victories. If it thought it could sucker the French into nuking Tehran, though, it might try to kill a few thousand of Chirac's constituents and leave behind lots of evidence linking the attack to Iran. If I were a raving lunatic locked up in a cave trying to "vex and exhaust" the "apostate" regimes of the Muslim and thought I could get a righteous war going between the West and half of Islam by killing a few thousand French, I'd give it some serious thought.
Fourth, Chirac was, all kidding aside, threatening Iran. In this regard, he was recognizing both that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism -- almost certainly the leading supporter of terrorists in the world now that the Taliban and Saddam Hussein are out of the way and Libya has come in from the cold -- and that Iran's most likely method of delivering such a weapon against a European country would be via infiltration, rather than on a ballistic missile or bomber. (For a comprehensive and fascinating discussion of "suitcase nukes", read yesterday's post at The Belmont Club.) Chirac was, in effect, telling the Iranians that they could have nuclear weapons or their terrorist network, but not both. This is in some ways like allowing a country to have missiles or warheads, but not both.
Fifth, it strikes me as highly unlikely that Chirac made this speech without Bush and Blair knowing about it and approving of it in advance (and it is probable that China and Russia knew about it in advance, too -- see below). Not only have France, Britain and the United States been in close communication over the confrontation with Iran, but I was not able to find so much as a quibble from the United States, which would have said something if it thought that France's shift in doctrine were ultimately contrary to American interests (which, in turn, suggests that we are not too worried about my "frame up" scenario).
Sixth, it is almost always easier for the French to declare something like this than it is for the United States or even the United Kingdom. Not being part of the Anglosphere (for which both we and they are grateful, no doubt), France simply does not draw the same fire from other big powers. Neither the Chinese nor the Russians, for example, have criticized Chirac. Since both countries have their own problems with Islamist terror, they no doubt agree with Chirac deep down, but they might have felt obligated to speak up if Bush had said what Chirac did say. There is no propaganda value in denouncing France.
Those are my first thoughts. Comments?
12 Comments:
By 
Christine, at
Sat Jan 21, 03:59:00 PM:
Many have mentioned the bad timing and possible negative ramifications of his statement. My initial reaction was different. Taking into consideration that out of all of the countries that are "considered" opposed to Iran, France is the only one that has taken the most flak for being "weak". In my opinion, France was the very last country I would have expected to stand up and make this type of statement. Now, whether or not this was the reason this statement was made or not is of course a different story. Just my opinion.
By Van Helsing, at
Sat Jan 21, 07:10:00 PM:
Nuclear weapons are the only way France could effectively retaliate. I doubt their military is up to invading Iran. But the proof that Iran was behind the attack would have to be incontrovertible to justify nukes.
By 
, at
Sat Jan 21, 07:26:00 PM:
Geezzzz Bruce. Have ya tried Decaf?
Anyway, I'm pretty sure that good ol' Jackie Boy had his cage rattled by those 'inconvenient' riots across France over the holidays. I'm also sure he and his constituents did not savor the thought of some version of "Paristan" and the need to change Le Champs Elysees to the "Ayatollah Highway". Add to that sirius_sir's comment about a possible foiled plot (not announced obviously) and you get the makings of a nice little "I'll scratch your back, if..." between France and the US, UK, et.al.
By , at
Sat Jan 21, 08:26:00 PM:
Nuclear retaliation as a response to a major terrorist attack is a given for most countries possessing nuclear weapons. The US, Russia, China , Israel, etc. do not need to make such a statement.
Chirac made this statement because there seems to be some doubt about French willingness to defend itself.
IMHO, it was a necessary clarification.
By , at
Sat Jan 21, 08:42:00 PM:
If you want to threaten some group with retaliation you must threaten to hurt, take or destroy something they value. Fundamental Islamic terrorists don't value much in the modern world over their fanatic, religiously-driven ambition of world domination. Human lives of even their own people doesn't seem to carry much weight. I can name one target that might catch their attention though, and that would be Mecca.
I would tell these religious nuts that if a nuclear strike to the western world, including Israel, occurs which can be unquestionably traced to Muslims of any stripe then we, the USA and our allies, will melt the the Kaaba that houses the Black Stone in Mecca as part of the process of turning the Holy City into radioactive glass.
No excuses, no waivering just immediate retaliation on a target of limitless worth to Islam but of little value to the rest of the world. Maybe even Islamic savages could take such a threat to heart.
By , at
Sat Jan 21, 09:11:00 PM:
For a devout Muslim, admiting that is possible to vaporize their Rock would be the same as denying the existence of Allah. Therefore, no real Muslim would give this threat any credibility. In their minds, Allah would personally intervene in the matter.
You can kill God, but you can't threaten to do it.
I have no doubt that if a nuclear weapon detonated in Israel, the Israelis would include all of the Islamic holy sites in their target list. They might even destroy the Temple Mount.
Whether or not any other nuclear power might do the same thing is acadamic. If Iran used five nuclear weapons, I don't know what targets would be assigned to bombs two through five, but you can be sure that bomb one will go off in Tel Aviv.
The use of nuclear weapons by Iran will positively result in the destruction of all Islamic holy sites, but we can never credibly threaten to do such a thing.
I wonder what the reaction of about one billion Muslims will be when they realize that Allah never existed.
Not good I imagine.
By , at
Sat Jan 21, 09:15:00 PM:
Rays: "Nuclear retaliation as a response to a major terrorist attack is a given for most countries possessing nuclear weapons. The US, Russia, China , Israel, etc. do not need to make such a statement."
I'm not sure that's true. The US, after all, considered and rejected a nuclear response to 9/11.
After reading much about Iran this week, I've tentatively come to the view that a nuclear Iran can probably be deterred. But that will require its adversaries to actually engage in **deterrence**.
In the cold war, the US drew clear public red lines, such as a Soviet invasion of Western Europe or the Persian Gulf. If the Soviets crossed the line, we were precommitted to a nuclear response. If the US/UK/France/Russia coalition is serious about containing Iran, then I'd look for more of those countries to make this kind of statement.
At any rate, we have to be sufficiently clear about the matter to leave no doubt in Tehran how we'll respond. And similarly, to leave no doubt among regional allies how the US will respond if Iranian nukes go off in Riyadh, Tel Aviv or Baghdad.
By , at
Sat Jan 21, 10:03:00 PM:
"I'm not sure that's true. The US, after all, considered and rejected a nuclear response to 9/11."
By "a major terrorist attack", I meant an attack severe enough to warrant a nuclear retaliation such as a nuclear detonation or a smallpox attack. Sorry for not being clear.
I believe that it is possible to deter Iran from attacking the US or EU if they were the only targets.
But Islam could never be deterred from attacking Israel. The existence of Israel on their holy land is a denial of the primacy of Islam. To tolerate the Israeli control of the Temple Mount is to deny Allah.
Devout Islamists will sacrifice everything in order to destroy Israel.
Iran knows that to attack Israel guarantees a nuclear retaliation from Israel.
There would be no reason to hold back from attacking everybody else.
By Georg Felis, at
Sun Jan 22, 01:50:00 AM:
Well, there is another reason Jock might have decided to try to Talk the Big Talk. So far in the War, the U.S. has been hit. Spain has been hit. And England has been hit. And France…has had a bunch of teens burn cars in the streets. Of all the nations vulnerable to terrorists, I would place France fairly high on the list. They’re pompous, have lots of teenage nuts in the country already, and low security. Any attack will have a dramatic result (the French can be so stuck up that nobody likes them, even the French). Just because they are not in our corner on The War, doesn’t mean the Islamic Terrorists consider them an ally, just another soft and corrupt enemy.
Yes, it sounds cynical, but Jock is in a tight spot. Lots of Islamic French voters inside the country, lots of French commercial contracts outside the country, and having made so many Anti-War statements makes it so if there is a French attack, he’s going to be looking for a new job really quickly. I don’t sympathize with him at all, he worked himself into the Axis of Weasels by himself. Now he has to delay the inevitable, hopefully until he has been out of office for a few months, and can blame it on his successor (like somebody else we all know and love).
By , at
Sun Jan 22, 05:28:00 AM:
You read to much into this.
Look at Chirac's history. He is a manipulative politician and, by a number of acounts, a criminal.
Chirac's comments were for internal consumption more than anything. He needs the job to stay out of court. He needs to sound tough to have any chance of staying in the job.
By Meme chose, at
Sun Jan 22, 09:11:00 AM:
Before we get too excited about this we should remember that these are WORDS. Words of all shapes and sizes, and not much else, are the Europeans' speciality these days.
European countries all have a lot of laws on the books, for example, denying entry to illegal immigrants and providing for their deportation, believe it or not. In actual fact their borders are better described as totally open (i.e. undefended). They keep saying they are going to fix this, but these are once again just words.
The practical impacts of this are two:
(1) Chirac has overtly conceded that Bush's policy is correct (Bush's policy in my view having been from 9/12 that after a mass casualty attack one or more regimes associated with terror must be utterly destroyed 'pour encourager les autres').
(2) Perhaps the most lasting effect is that, as you mention, this puts a gigantic premium on the ability to disguise the source of future attacks. Plenty of room for mischief there.
By Dymphna, at
Mon Jan 23, 10:07:00 PM:
Tigerhawk--
Have you seen the Weekly Standard's essay on how much the Algerian terrorists want France. Rather disturbing.
Here's my link, Weekly Standard article is clipped there:
Is France a WMD?
One of my commenters suggested that Europe will do things the old Europe way: wait till the very last moment and then start killing everyone. He certainly has history on his side.
