Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Sanctions on Iran
Andy McCarthy, one of the handful of Americans ever to convict an Islamist terrorist, has examined the United Nations "sanctions" against Iran -- I use the scare quotes advisedly -- and he does not like what he sees. Rarely have fewer words been minced. In fact, I'm thinking that it must have been quite a Christmas over at the McCarthy household ("Yes, dear, we know that the sanctions are a complete joke and that the State Department has quite predictably gone soft again, but you'll feel better if you have some more pie...").
BONUS: Newshounds know that we captured "senior Iranian military officials" in Iraq conspiring to wage war against that country and the United States. By historical standards, the United States would have casus belli (as if we did not already). Michael Ledeen imagines that Hadley and Rice will wimp out. Again.
The question is, what should we do?
14 Comments:
By 
William, at
Tue Dec 26, 05:18:00 PM:
We don't want the Mullahs to go nuclear.
As long as Iran & China are trading with Iran, the UN is not a viable solution.
Unilateral military action has not only daunting logistical barriers but also daunting potential repercussions (especially if we mess up on delivery).
I believe the best solution would be to make a coalition of those who do not want Iran to go nuclear, and then launch a coordinated military strike (US & Britain does most the work, the others provide legitimacy). I suspect most of the other Arab states and many European countries would join.
We would also have to make it very clear that our enemy, and the enemy of the Iranians, are the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad. We would have to take our diplomatically burnished blade and wedge it between the leadership and their people. Such a feat could be accomplished by giving the Iranian leadership a clear carrot stick choice:
Carrot- Open up the country to inspectors, move all the enriching processes (those that can be used to create bombs) to Russia, don't ban anyone from running in elections, and we will drop all of our domestic-goods sanctions.
Stick- Continue on current path and face military strikes that will wipe out all nuclear and suspected nuclear facilities and all military elements that resist the strikes.
Make it very public to all the Iranians, and that way when the bombs start falling, the only one to blame should be the pride of the Iranian leadership.
By Pudentilla, at
Tue Dec 26, 11:06:00 PM:
Apologize to a sovereign nation (don't forget the purple fingers!) for kidnapping diplomats who had been invited by the government and were lawfully in the country?
Nah, instead, let's cry "casus belli" and let slip the dogs of another war on other people's kids.
The fact that the Tehran Tango will be conducted by the same monstrous failures who brought us the excellent (but let's face it kids, growing a little stale) Iraqi Imbroglio, cheered on by the 101st Keyboarders, who are oh so safe from the moral consequences of treating war like a reality tv show - priceless.
By Gordon Smith, at
Tue Dec 26, 11:58:00 PM:
Didn't we have this conversation a few years ago about Iraq?
By K. Pablo, at
Wed Dec 27, 12:13:00 AM:
Re-reading parts of Kenneth Pollack's excellent The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America, I was struck by his description of the division within Iranian policymakers' circles regarding their goals in Iraq. Pragmatists seemed to favor allowing a stable government to emerge. They were opposed by the hardliners who favored establishing buffer regions/protectorates in eastern and southern Iraq.
Although Pollack concedes that the true motivation of either party remains obscure, he does indicate that the Iranians, having just experienced a rebellion in Baluchistan, feared instability on their borders. They are now facing significant instability on several of their borders, what with the recent death of Saparmurat Niyazov, President for Life of Turkmenistan.
Russia has designs on Turkmenistan, as evidenced by a little dispute they had about natural gas a couple of months ago. Indeed, the 'stans are contested ground between Iran, China, and Russia, all because of energy politics. This dynamic undoubtedly was played out during the UNSC discussions on sanctions. The U.S. is pretty much a peripheral player in this energy arena.
Faced with a pending succession crisis once Khamenei dies, with Ahmadinejad's hardliners waning while that old cockroach Rafsanjani resurfaces, I've got to think the Mullahtariat is thinking about hunkering down for a bit. They've attracted the attention of the Saudis who at the very least can glut the market with black gold/Texas tea, they're in danger of having Syria "flipped" by whatever Ohlmert is cooking up with the Egyptians and Saudis, and the U.S. can pull out of Afghanistan the minute Nancy Pelosi gets a bug up her ass.
A power vacuum in Afghanistan would be filled by a resurgent Taliban working out of west Pakistan. They would not likely be idle bystanders if there is a Sunni-Shiite jihad going on next door.
As far as a prescription for action: Don't Just Do Something -- Stand There! The left is jeering at our Fabian president, but I think he's keeping powder dry and pre-positioning forces under the guise of a "surge".
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Dec 27, 12:31:00 AM:
"The question is, what should we do?"
Interrogate them. Naturally.
By Purple Avenger, at
Wed Dec 27, 12:49:00 AM:
Destroy or blockade the terminal they import the gasoline at. They'll scream uncle within a matter of weeks as gas pumps all over the country go dry.
By K. Pablo, at
Wed Dec 27, 09:11:00 AM:
I'm not one to often argue caution, but good marksmanship depends on controlling your breathing and a smooth trigger pull -- both of which are ill-served by hyperventilation.
These "carrots" so derided by Andrew McCarthy are paltry at the moment, but can take on a much more desireable character if Iran is faced with a truly deteriorating situation over the next few years. Because China and Russia are competitors to Iran in the regional hegemony/energy sweepstakes, I believe we need to factor that into our considerations, and I believe Iran would be poorly positioned in such a competition if the mullahs gave in to their adventurist comrades in the IRGC.
Pollack reports that Iranian activity in Iraq was first detected in May of 2003, soon after the conclusion of major combat operations in OIF. By early 2004 "the IRGC (including its Quds forces), Hizbollah, the MOIS, Lebanese Hizbollah, and assorted others" were present. In February 2004 the one of these groups even mounted an operation to break out a group of Iranians imprisoned in Fallujah. Thereafter, these groups were reportedly present in force in Shiite-dominated areas, but they were networking and not operational for some time. None of this is secret.
Capturing some "senior military leaders" then, would be a somewhat contrived basis for a casus belli, then, unless there's more There there (and that's quite possible). Or it could mean that rogue elements of the Iranian military and intelligence services are increasingly free to pursue their own ends because of the succession struggle about which we civilians keep hearing only tantalizing morsels.
The strategy therefore IMHO, should be continued pressure and containment, rather than blockade (an act of war). Blockade cannot be achieved by the U.S. acting alone; we'd have to depend on the Turks (remember the 4th ID?), the Russians who dominate the Caspian (nuff said), Turkmenistan (see previous post), and Afghanistan (possible), in addition to the U.S. Navy. I have no doubt the U.S. Navy has the capability to keep the Straits of Hormuz open, but I don't think Nancy Pelosi or Joe Biden would let them enforce a blockade. It could be George W. would leave this to his successor, Republican or Democrat. Other levers of pressure include strengthening our commitment to the Kurds, Saudi aid to Sunni tribesmen in western Iraq (this also checks al-Qaeda), Jordanian assurances to assist Syria with its Sunni refugee problem (flip Syria), Saudi manipulation of world oil prices, and (not least) stabilization of Baghdad for the evolution of a functioning Iraqi central government.
If we truly are fighting a generational war, sometimes a little patience is warranted, particularly if there is something to be gained by attrition. Public opinion in the U.S. is an attritional factor on our ability to project force, and our enemies know that. Public opinion would not support a massive expenditure of ordnance and manpower at the moment. However, the laws of attrition work both ways....
By Fellow American, at
Wed Dec 27, 12:06:00 PM:
This article at the Objective Standard, titled No Substitute for Victory, the Defeat of Islamic Totalitarianism, makes a pretty convincing argument for giving the a Potsdam style ultimatum, i.e. knock it off or face "prompt and utter destruction".
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Wed Dec 27, 12:39:00 PM:
"The 20,000 to 30,000 max troops that would be involved in the surge is enough to accomplish precisely nothing."
The situation reminds me of a T-shirt for sale in the Cook Islands: "Send more tourists. The last ones were delicious."
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Dec 27, 01:23:00 PM:
"The 20,000 to 30,000 max troops that would be involved in the surge is enough to accomplish precisely nothing."
I had no idea you were a military expert, John. Why have you been hiding this wisdom up until now?
Two things for Pablo. Regarding a blockade, it all depends on where Iran's capabilities lie. If, say, 75% of their exports are through Gulf shipping, then closing the Gulf will reduce their exports by 75%. If another 12% is through a trans-Turkish pipeline, closing that off with a bomb or a Special Forces team will reduce it 12% more. Not all routes are equal, and you don't have to close them all. You just have to make them see things your way.
As for attrition, you're right, but you forgot an additional factor. There's a little timer somewhere clicking down to 0; 0 being the moment that Iran develops it's second workable atomic weapon. That will change everything. A strategy of attrition that is aimed to succeed *after* 0 hour is basically handing nuclear status to Iran on a silver platter.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Dec 27, 08:33:00 PM:
Man, you've got to teach me how to do that! Now no matter what happens... you're right! Because you and only you get to decide what counts as a 'reason' and what doesn't. And trying to prevent Iraq from becoming Yugoslavia circa 1994 thanks to the meddling of neighbors apparently isn't one. After all, what's another ethnic cleansing in the world compared to lives of our precious, fragile soldiers?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061226/ap_on_re_us/pilgrimage_to_iraq
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Dec 28, 01:51:00 PM:
So Iraq is a hopeless cause, a write off soon to be marked by whole brigades of Shi'a marching around massacreing thousands of Sunni and Christians at a time, (because that's what happened in Yugoslavia) unless we send the number of troops that you propose. Be sure to forward that advice to Centcom.
200,000 more troops = 200,000 more weapons, 200,000 more mouths to be fed, 400,000 more boots, and 200,000 more targets standing around being shot at occasionally. Without even considering all of the political ramifications.
What is actually needed is a change in strategy. The troops there now are pursuing a 'Vietnamization' type strategy, to get the Iraqi Army and police up and running as independent forces, able to handle their own problems. This has worked to a large degree, and the Iraqi Army is assuming more and more responsibilities and handling them competently.
The police, however, are locally organized and managed and are subject to political corruption, including control by pro-Iranian elements in the government. Some precincts favor or are actively involved with Shi'a militias who carry out the Shi'a side of sectarian attacks.
These elements need to be cut away. If the Iraqi judicial system can't handle such a load yet, and I suspect it can't, then kill them and burn their buildings. The British did just that a few days ago to a corrupt police unit in Basra. We need more of it. And it could be done with what we have in Iraq now. So far, only the most egregiuos violators have been targeted.
We need more aggression, but our leadership is tiptoing through the tulips with these assholes for some reason I can't figure out but I'm sure has to do with Iraqi politics. You could drop in another 200,000 troops, but without an accompanying change in activity what makes you think it'll do any good? And the necessary change in activity doesn't need 200,000 more troops.
Where do you get this number of 200k anyway? Are you just pulling numbers out of mid-air and acting like it's a well-founded estimate, or is there an underlying logic that just hasn't been mentioned yet?
By K. Pablo, at
Thu Dec 28, 03:25:00 PM:
Dawnfire, your comments regarding blockade and attrition are definitely valid. Glenn Reynolds links to a paper by Roger Stern today, which analyzes Iran's oil predicament.
I agree that the attrition timer is ticking, but it is interesting to wonder how Iran's leaders would prioritize their resources in the face of a declining economy. I doubt, given their fractious society and numerous political centers-of-gravity, that they would be able to go the Kim Jung Il route and funnel everything towards the nuclear program. I suspect the mullahs could lose control this way, and they know it.
Here's to getting them to "see things our way"!
By Pudentilla, at
Fri Dec 29, 10:17:00 PM:
Apparently we've turned two of the folks in question back over to the Iranians. Oops.
