By Charles Krauthammer, WaPo
Either Israel is engaged in the most elaborate ruse since the Trojan horse or it is on the cusp of a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
What’s alarming is not just Iran’s increasing store of enriched uranium or the growing sophistication of its rocketry. It’s also the increasingly menacing annihilationist threats emanating from Iran’s leaders. Israel’s existence is “an insult to all humanity,” says President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime.” Explains the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Israel is “a true cancer tumor on this region that should be cut off.”
Everyone wants to avoid military action, surely the Israelis above all. They can expect a massive counterattack from Iran, 50,000 rockets launched from Lebanon, Islamic Jihad firing from Gaza, and worldwide terror against Jewish and Israeli targets, as happened last month in Bulgaria.
Yet Israel will not sit idly by in the face of the most virulent genocidal threats since Nazi Germany. The result then was 6?million murdered Jews. There are 6?million living in Israel today.
Time is short. Last-ditch negotiations in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow have failed abjectly. The Iranians are contemptuously playing with the process. The strategy is delay until they get the bomb.
What to do? The sagest advice comes from Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Cordesman is a hardheaded realist — severely critical of the Bush administration’s conduct of the Iraq war, skeptical of the “war on terror,” dismissive of the strategic importance of Afghanistan, and a believer that “multilateralism and soft power must still be the rule and not the exception.”
He may have found his exception. “There are times when the best way to prevent war is to clearly communicate that it is possible,” he argues. Today, the threat of a U.S. attack is not taken seriously. Not by the region. Not by Iran. Not by the Israelis, who therefore increasingly feel forced to act before Israel’s more limited munitions — far less powerful and effective than those in the U.S. arsenal — can no longer penetrate Iran’s ever-hardening facilities.
Cordesman therefore proposes threefold action.
1. “Clear U.S. red lines.”
It’s time to end the ambiguity about American intentions. Establish real limits on negotiations — to convince Iran that the only alternative to a deal is preemptive strikes and to persuade Israel to stay its hand.
2. “Make it clear to Iran that it has no successful options.”
Either its program must be abandoned in a negotiated deal (see No. 1 above) on generous terms from the West (see No. 3 below), or its facilities will be physically destroyed. Ostentatiously let Iran know about the range and power of our capacities — how deep and extensive a campaign we could conduct, extending beyond just nuclear facilities to military-industrial targets, refineries, power grids and other concentrations of regime power.
3. Give Iran a face-saving way out.
Offer Iran the most generous possible terms — economic, diplomatic and political. End of sanctions, assistance in economic and energy development, trade incentives and a regional security architecture. Even Russian nuclear fuel.
Tellingly, however, Cordesman does not join those who suggest yielding on nuclear enrichment. That’s important because a prominently leaked proposed “compromise” would guarantee Iran’s right to enrich, though not to high levels.
In my view, this would be disastrous. Iran would retain the means to potentially produce fissile material, either clandestinely or in a defiant breakout at a time of its choosing.
Would Iran believe a Cordesman-like ultimatum? Given the record of the Obama administration, maybe not. Some (though not Cordesman) have therefore suggested the further step of requesting congressional authorization for the use of force if Iran does not negotiate denuclearization.
First, that’s the right way to do it. No serious military action should be taken without congressional approval (contra Libya). Second, Iran might actually respond to a threat backed by a strong bipartisan majority of the American people — thus avoiding both war and the other nightmare scenario, a nuclear Iran.
If we simply continue to drift through kabuki negotiations, however, one thing is certain. Either America, Europe, the Gulf Arabs and the Israelis will forever be condemned to live under the threat of nuclear blackmail (even nuclear war) from a regime the State Department identifies as the world’s greatest exporter of terror. Or an imperiled Israel, with its more limited capabilities, will strike Iran — with correspondingly greater probability of failure and of triggering a regional war.
All options are bad. Doing nothing is worse. “The status quo may not prevent some form of war,” concludes Cordesman, “and may even be making it more likely.”
@ Bernard Ross: Vinnie, apparently my English is poor. What I am trying to say is that I do not believe that destroying the nuclear facilities alone will bring a sustainable result for Israel. Other WMD and delivery methods can be substituted and apparently the nuclear destruction will only delay. The mullahs and the Iranians are the problem not just the nukes. I include the Iranians because they are a resource for the Mulllahs as the Germans were for the Nazis. Until there is destruction in Iran the choice for the Iranians between the Mullahs and survival will not be appparent. It appears that once one attacks the nukes one may as well attack the infrastructure and the Mullahs. Once supremacy in the air can be attained there are many methodologies to deposing the Mullahs. These include support for the Iranian Kurds and a Kurdish state, the Saudis can continue their battle by sending in their al quaeda mercenaries to Iran, etc etc etc. I agree with Shmuel regarding destroing all the infrastructure as local chaos will change the mullahs focus to trying to retain power locally. I dont see much need for ground troops exept to secure ports but even this may not be necessary. Iran can be continued to be destroyed from the air over a period of time. Where the US went wrong in Iraq was when it shifted from a war policy, destroy the enemy, to a hearts and mind policy of rebuildng Iraq. Its initial strategy and tactic was quickly successful but Iraq was never devastated and therefore was never pacified. In conclusion: destroy the nuke sites, destroy the infrastructure(as per Shmuel),destroy all known mullah haunts, lairs, residences,govt buildings, etc. from the air first. Once there is air supremacy Israel is adept at targeted bombings. The head of the snake must be attacked until destroyed.
@ Bernard Ross:
OK, you said these things:
“Strikes to render nuclear sites harmless are now too late. the mullahs will unleash terror abroad and repression at home.”
“Talk of delaying their program is futile.”
“Limited strikes and warfare are futile, its too late.”
Now, maybe my English comprehension skills are lacking and you can help me with this, but it seems to me that you were hammering home the point with the above direct quotes from your original post that the idea of a strike focused on Iran’s nuke sites – and that does seem to be what most serious commentary on the Iran situation discusses – would thus have to be a bluff, if you believe what you say above.
What you are calling for is an all-out war against Iran, with the aim of regime change. You say you are not suggesting a WW2-style invasion, but you nonetheless expect the kind of endgame that this got us in 1945 with respect to Germany and Japan.
I don’t know what your background is in military history or security affairs, but I would respectfully suggest that you are not really thinking about this clearly if you believe that such an outcome can be achieved with Iran short of putting a LOT of boots on the ground. You are not going to achieve this with an air campaign. Forget it. We had to put a quarter of a million on the ground just to get rid of Saddam, and that was for a country the size of Nevada with a population of less than 20 million (I think it was on the order of 17 million). In the case of Iran, you are talking about a land mass the size of Alaska with a population closer to 70 million. If you think we can carry out regime change with just a big air campaign and maybe a few special ops guys on the ground…then you and I are not living in the same universe. This is not Libya we are talking about here.
Israel certainly does not have the resources to do this. The best they will be able to do is stop or seriously delay Iran’s nuke program. If this sparks an internal revolution that overthrows the mullahs, great, but that is not something we can make happen or count on.
The U.S. under Obama is not going to do a damned thing. Count them out. As long as Obama is in office, whatever happens in the way of stopping Iran is up to Israel.
The U.S. even under Romney would never commit to such a major operation as you suggest, with such ambitious goals. Certainly not in his first term. A second term Santorum or Gingrich, perhaps, but they are out of the picture. Maybe an Allen West sometime at the far end of the next decade, perhaps. But the U.S. is not doing this in the foreseeable future.
Politics is the art of the possible, and as Clausewitz pointed out, war is politics by other means. We are stuck with what is possible. What you are suggesting, for the time being, simply isn’t.
A solid body blow to Iran’s nuke program, and Iran’s local proxies, would be very helpful. If accomplished, while not creating an ideal situation, it would certainly improve things in the West’s and Israel’s favor. This is the most we can expect under the present circumstances. Beyond that, for now, is only daydreams.
SHmuel HaLevi Said:
This is what Israels enemies wish to do to Israel. If the mullahs remain alive and in power it will not be successful and the mullahs will be more prone to killing jews globally and using WMD. It can not be left to the Iranians to depose their mullahs, wishful thinking will leave everyone in the same position after the attacks. The nuclear facilities, the infrastructure and the mullahs must be destroyed simultaneously or greater danger remains.
@ Vinnie:
To clarify my views I should mention that I am a former Senior-Fellow Engineer, US Department of Defense military avionics programs. Also an invited consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Defense. I am not a pilot or a logistics expert but I know very well the capabilities of our air force, both the US’s and the Israeli.
There is little doubt that Iran’s infrastructure which is virtually open as their meager resources are located about their military and in particular nuclear sites, would be the most efficient strategic objective.
And cruise missiles could carry most of the day.
Centrifuges are easily replaced at this point and since they do work in cascade to process the Uranium gas compound, attacking them to blow them up can cause major contamination as well.
If they could be made inoperative that will cause some delay but not a major one.
My deep concern is that the suicidal maniacs would detonate by themselves explosive charges at their critical nuclear facilities to cause radioactive contamination and then blame us for that.
Tactically one could conceive plans to destroy Iran’s critical assets causing a regime collapse or revolution if Iran would be led by normal human beings, but that is not the case.
SHmuel HaLevi Said:
Agreed. I am not a nuclear facility expert however it is the destruction of those facilities which appears to be the focus of Israel and US military. I think the focus should be the destruction of the mullahs and if necessary, Iran.
Vinnie Said:
I am not promoting a WWII invasion but showing that the Germans and Japanese surrendered after being devastated and that the preferred solution of Iranian revolution is unlikely unless the mullahs are destroyed. The mullahs are unlikely to be destroyed unless the devastation is such that their own people rise up prior to risking lives on an invasion. Therefore the destruction of the infrastructure,etc is a must, this can be done from the air.
Vinnie Said:
It is not important who appeared to attack first,these are usually smoke and mirrors. The war served both nations in relieving them of angry muslim men who could present threats to their powers. This is the nature of the mideast: incompetent, negligent govts needing to rid itself of consuming, unproductive, angry young men. Hence,most mideast wars and muslims sent from Saudi to afghanistan.
Vinnie Said:
dont agree, they are ready for the limited restrained war that they expect to happen because it will give opporunity to consolidate control through repression and angry dead young men.
Vinnie Said:
Sorry, this is not a war about credibility but a real war demanding castration of the enemy or his total destruction. NO mullah must be allowed to remain and it must be a lesson to all Islam.
Vinnie Said:
You apparently are not aware of their international abilities to kill Jews. Also, this is a poor tactic. Once commiting to attack it is advisable to cut off the head of the snake; in this case it is necessary. The proxies must also be destroyed.
Vinnie Said:
A strike only against the nuke facilities is foolish and maintains the mullah power.
Vinnie Said:
I dont remember saying this as I have no idea whether a bluff or not.
@ SHmuel HaLevi:
No, Shmuel, not “we”, rather, you have posited this ‘mass attack’ strategy.
I’m not sure which is less feasible.
There could be ways that the centrifuges – the critical component of the program that provides the raw material for a bomb – may be destoyed that does not cause a massive ecological disaster. I sure won’t relate such scenarios here, but this may be possible.
What you suggest is a comprehensive attack. This would seem to stretch the physical, logistical capabilities of the Israeli Air Force quite a bit. And to the point of getting the mullahs to “surrender”? Look at what Iran endured for nearly a decade fighting Iraq. They are not going to “surrender” short of a WW2-style invasion of the sort suggested by Mr. Ross.
@ Bernard Ross:
The talk about attacking critical state nuclear facilities is simply not logical.
Ever seen a nuclear reactor or an highly enriched Uranium storage facility bombed?
Causing a gigantic ecological disaster is not the way to do it. Too late.
We mentioned several times that Israel must demolish Iran’s infrastructure.
Airports, ports, rail system roads, conventional electrical power plants, refineries, telecom systems, military depots, etc.
Iran must be paralyzed until its own people and others cause the islamic cult of death leadership to surrender and then dismantle using technical experts their nuclear military centers.
Hold on a second there, Mr. Ross.
If memory serves me, it was Iraq who attacked Iran, not the other way around. The U.S. and other Western powers (e.g., France, the UK) winked and looked the other way, giving Saddam a “green light” to hit Iran, which he did for his own purposes.
Iran wants war on their own timetable. They don’t want it yet, they are not ready.
Their economy is about the size of Ohio’s…with about seven times the population. 80% of that economy is based on the sale of commodities, which should give an idea of just how otherwise undeveloped they are. I saw on the news the other day that per capita income there is about $4000 per year.
They don’t have a credible conventional military by major power standards. Their army is large but poorly trained. Their navy and air force are a joke. Their primary element of power projection is terrorism.
Nukes are a cheap way, relatively speaking, of gaining “instant” credibility. That is why they want them so bad…besides the ability to take on the Great Satan and the Little Satan.
Take out the nuke sites – which I believe can still be done – and they suffer a massive defeat in terms of credibility, and they are left once again with no overt way to project power or intimidate anyone. What is more, the likely war involving Hezbollah/Hamas/Israel will give Israel the excuse to bludgeon these Iranian proxies into the ground, thus depriving Iran of those “assets” as well.
Of course, I’d like to see a revolution and the regime overthrown. We all would. But look at what happened there in ’09, and look at North Korea today. How likely is that? The only way that can be assured of happening is a WW2-style invasion as you allude to in the cases of Germany and Japan. I don’t rule that out in the long term if this regime stays in power, but it sure is not happening anytime soon, and that is the case no matter who gets elected here in November.
On a more optimistic note, I would not entirely rule out a “Falklands” scenario; the junta in Argentina was overthrown in the wake of their island-grabbing fiasco by a disgusted public that had enough of them. Perhaps we could see the same dynamic in Iran in the wake of a successful strike on their nuke sites. It’d be nice…hardly counting on it, though.
For that matter, I’m no longer counting on a strike, either. I allow that you may be right that all this talk of a strike is a massive bluff. But I submit to you that NEITHER of us is in any position to know one way or the other, definitively. You lean one way and I lean the other; events going forward will reveal who is right and who is wrong here.
I wish I could get paid for writing outdated conclusions. We are long past Cordesman or Krathammers suggestions. It is like dancing the Charlston when hip-hop is played. Accurate judgement trumps rational arguments. At this juncture Iran wants war just as it did with Iraq as it will sustain, they believe, the mullahs power(as it did with Iraq-Iran war). Strikes to render nuclear sites harmless are now too late. the mullahs will unleash terror abroad and repression at home. Only a complete military deposing of the current regime will have any chance of sustainability. Talk of delaying their program is futile. the mullahs, their governing infrastructure, Iran’s infrastructure must all be destroyed in order for everyone else to survive. Limited strikes and warfare are futile, its too late. The only other possibility to avert total war and still achieve success is an Iranian revolution with the ascension of a govt as in post WWII Germany and Japan but those nations surrendered unconditionally and accepted occupation after devastation.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again.
This administration won’t do it because the threat of an imminent Iran is the most powerful point of leverage Obama & Co. believe they have in coercing Israel into conceding to a Saudi-style surrender agreement with the PA. Forcing the Israelis to accept this, or failing that, wrecking the so-called “special relationship” between Israel and the U.S., is the primary foreign policy goal of this administration, to the exclusion of all else. It is the main reason why this Saudi Manchurian Candidate, anti-Israel political cruise missile was installed in the first place.
This is why, as was reported by Ted here previously, Gulf Arabs coughed up some $300 million in subsequently laundered campaign contributions in ’08, and why they used their influence in the markets to force the timing of the crash so as to scare the American people into voting for Obama. I mean, do you all suppose all those sheiks cared so much about getting a national health care plan instituted in the U.S.??
If the U.S. hits Iran’s nuke sites, that will deprive Obama of what he sees as his most powerful coercive bargaining chip with Israel. His ideal scenario is to restrain Israel from attacking Iran, by means of threats in the case of Israeli defiance, as well as various inducements and assurances (all empty, of course) that the U.S. will ultimately act if need be…until Israel can no longer strike effectively but the U.S. still can. At that point, he issues his ultimatum not to Iran, but to Israel: sign on the dotted line and withdraw to ’67 lines, divide Jerusalem, evacuate all Jews who live east of pre-’67 lines, allow for ROR….or we let Iran go nuclear.
And, he’d mean it. Obama & Co. don’t want a nuclear Iran, but if it comes to that, they feel it can be “contained”. That is nonsense, but they are so blinded by their Jew-hatred rationalized as disdain for Israel, and the “pragmatic” need to “appease” the Arabs/Moslems so as to keep the Islamist crazies away on the cheap (won’t work), that they have made strangling Israel in the service of this objective their main priority.
I have no inside information, of course. But when I see, for example, former Israeli UN Ambassador Dan Gellerman interviewed on this topic, as well as PM Netanyahu, and I see the print interviews of Deputy PM Moshe Ya’alon, and they all say that Israel can take out Iran’s nukes if they are left with no other choice, they sound pretty damned serious. I believe them.
Krauthammer, well-intentioned as he is, seems to be afraid that Israel can’t do it. He’s getting a bit nervous.
The article was a good attempt at trying to convince the powers-that-be here in the U.S. that we have to take the lead on this issue, despite obvious flaws in reasoning accurately pointed out by others here (yeah, bribing these crazies has always worked, that’s the ticket..). In an ultimate, “big picture” moral sense, he is right; Iran threatens more than Israel. Iran’s missiles, based in Iran’s ally, Venezuela, can reach the U.S.
But under Obama, what Krauthammer or Cordesman suggest is simply not going to happen. No way. Either Israel strikes, or Iran gets the bomb. That is what we are down to.
I expect this to be messy and dangerous, but hardly WW3. Neither the Chinese nor the Russians have any stake in protecting Iran’s “right” to develop nuclear arms. They are not going to go to the mat for the sake of the Mad Mullahs.
Bill, I like what you wrote in terms of your proposed official statement. But unfortunately, like Krauthammer’s article, while it will provide you with some “I told you so” rights in saying in advance what should have been done…ain’t no way this administration is going to do it. I’ll win the lottery first….
It has worked so far every time so why not trying it again…
Lets give the islamic death cult folk incentives so they will drop their plans to destroy all of us. AND also sign some “treaties” with them… They keep up to their part all the time so lets do that again.
We have a serious job ahead of us as a people and it starts with ourselves being made aware on how to confront reality, initially by those that went “back home” to Germany and Hungary and Poland.
After that with the concocting groups infirm by delusional plans.
My friends…
Iran did not invest well over two trillion dollars to develop a massive nuclear industry and abandon that.
It seems that Krauthammer agrees with the 3 stated Cordesman principles for dealing with Iran. While saying another Obama administation leaked compromise position, ie. allow Iran to continue nuclear enrichment, but within very low prescribed limits would be disastrous.
Cordesman’s 3rd stated position is troubling:
This approach has been the Mid East strategy of the West and the U.S. in particular as regards the bad, dangerous and threatening behaviour of tyrannical Muslim regimes and societies.
Societies like the Palestinians have played that game only to be offered substantial benefits for their being half way reasonable and non-violent. We have seen how that has worked out – NOT!
The Iranians have been the worst of Muslim nations flouting the will of the UN by lies, deceptions and still pursuing its agenda of being the most dangerous exporter of Muslim terror.
Rather than offer to pay off the Iranian regime to abandon their evil ways and hereafter act peacefully, honestly and with integrity, point number 3 should be a proposed action that will reinforce points number 1 and 2.
For example, the U.S., along with NATO and the UN or just the U.S. if NATO and the UN don’t have the intestinal fortitude to do it could blanket Iranians with a stern message via the internet and by those Arab nations who fear Iran and likely would play along.
The message could be something like:
An important, but dire message to the Iranian people
The Western nations and the UN have been negotiating with your government for the past 10 years to abandon its nuclear WMD ambitions which threaten not only Israel, but the entire Middle East and the West. Your government has repeatedly broken every agreement and promise to not advance their nuclear WMD agenda. It claims that it is only purusing nuclear capacity for peaceful purposes, yet every assurance given by your government in that regard including agreements to allow for inspections of Iranian facilities to ensure the nuclear program will be only for peaceful purposes has been broken.
Be advised that your government has been given one final ultimatum that unless by September 15th, 2012 your government allows each and every nuclear facility to be inspected by outside experts, the West will no longer tolerate your government’s lies and deceptions. Soon thereafter, at a time of the West’s choosing, the West will attack Iran, destroying her military bases and munitions, her ports, her power and transportation infrastructure, all her nuclear facilities and the seats of power of your government.
If your government fails to heed this last and final warning, be assured that the West will attack Iran and all you good people of Iran who have already suffered greatly because of your government’s treachery, will suffer all the more.
Understand that the West only wants your government to abide by prior agreements it has broken. The West does not want to make war on your nation.
Understand however, that if your government continues past September 15th, 2012 to ignore the West’s demands, the West will attack Iran and you good people of Iran will suffer, all because your government refused to compromise with the West and abandon its hostile threatening Nuclear WMD agenda.
Perhaps such kind of message could have a telling effect on the Iranian mullocracy and if not, on the Iranian people who might just mass in the streets to force their government to capitulate.
@ CuriousAmerican:
That settles it. Obama can now bomb Iran with CA approval. Of course that would probably insure another 4 years of the Black Plague.
I would support a strike on Iran.