Stop Or I'll Say Stop Again

Nostradamus, the prophet Daniel and other so called 'prophets' of the 19th century all agree: the West will one day be at war with Iran. The first great war is near and is predicted as early as 2006 and likely no later than 2008 or 2009.

Iran tore up an international nuclear deal yesterday when it restarted its uranium enrichment programme, setting the stage for a clash with the West.

Teheran's move will intensify fears that it is secretly developing nuclear weapons, a prospect that has become even more alarming after calls by the radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

That's the best one "will intensify fears". Hellooo anybody there earth calling MSM? How many more times is the Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad going to say "Bugger off world, I am going nuclear!" The seals are broken guys, get with the programme, the religion of peace is marching towards......"nuclear programme [being] "peaceful", and [intending] to carry out only "research and development" Yeah right.

Iran removed UN seals at uranium enrichment research facilities yesterday AND announced it would resume "research and development" on producing uranium fuel, exactly as he said he would again and again, and again.

And now finally the foreign ministers of Germany, France and Britain, hopefully one out of the three awake, will meet in Berlin tomorrow to discuss the crisis caused by Iran's move to reactivate a nuclear fuel program 'mothballed' under a November 2004 deal with the EU trio.

As usual Germany, like most of Europe, are already on their "Stop Or I'll Say Stop Again path to dispalying their European cowardice:

Erler [Germany's Deputy Foreign Minister] cautioned on Deutschlandfunk radio against referring the dispute to the UN Security Council, saying it could further destabilize the Middle East.

"I don't know what the three foreign ministers will decide [at Thursday's meeting], but I believe they cannot continue to negotiate without an Iranian assurance that there will be no concrete enrichment activity," Erler said.

He cautioned that referring the matter to the Security Council would likely lead to the "threat of sanctions, and that can lead to an escalation that can get out of control."

"That is the risk, and that is how it was with the preparation for and the road to the Iraq war," said Erler. "That would be in no way reassuring given the other problems we currently have in the greater Middle East."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair will no doubt be standing alone, not of course in his dismay, everyone is, but  in what level of support his proposed actions will receive tomorrow:

""The decision by Iran is very serious indeed, I do not think there is any point in people, or us, hiding our deep dismay at what Iran has decided to do.

I think the first thing to do is to secure agreement for a reference to the Security Council, that is indeed what the allies jointly decide as I think seems likely," Blair told parliament.

"Then .. we have to decide what measures to take and we obviously don't rule out any measures at all," he added."

And this today, just in case things were not bad enough already:

President Bashar al-Assad of Syria secretly incited Iraq's top Shia leader to declare holy war against US and British forces, according to Washington's former administrator in the country.

In his new book, My Year in Iraq, Paul Bremer said he heard the explosive intelligence in October 2003 as sectarian tensions soared across the country following the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The report came from an extremely senior source, the supreme leader of Iraq's majority Shia community, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

According to Mr Bremer, the news was passed to him by Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a senior Shia politician involved in negotiations with the ayatollah. The Syrian leader had apparently recalled the Shia-led uprising against the British in 1920 and urged the Shia to repeat history.

The question still remains 'Has Israel Persuaded Washington?

More from Steve @ Secure Liberty.

I just discovered this absolutely priceless comment from a Bostonian who comments on Haaretz. I am posting it here because in many ways it typifies a scary opinion I have seen all too often:

I find this whole business about Iran to be a huge hypocrisy. Why can Israel have nuclear weapons and other regimes have them, but Iran can't? In comparison, Iran has only had one modern major war (in self-defense, against Iraq), while Israel has numerous examples of belligerent, aggressive strikes on their Muslim neighbors. I don't buy the "Iran is a threat" mantra. So far, they haven't invaded or threatened anyone. Why the assumption that they will, and that they can't have nuclear weapons because of that? I'd think Iran has more to fear from its neighbors and the West.

I find the Iranian theocratic regime to be condemnable and horrible, but that is no reason to apply different standards to them. If we can have nukes, so can they. And as long as they don't violate the UN Charter's prohibition on aggressive war (like we did in Iraq, and in other countless examples), they're a sovereign country in good standing (as far as foreign policy is concerned). Leave em alone."

Unbelievable, I hate to think that it will have to take a nuclear hit for that view to change, and even then if the bomb doesn't land in the U.S. it will be someone else's problem. Yeah right.

UPDATE JAN 12TH: After two and a half years, the negotiations between Germany, France, U.K, and Iran have come to a dead end today at the meeting in Berlin. No surprises there.

• Sept 2002: Work begins on Iran's first reactor at Bushehr
• Dec 2002: Satellites reveal Arak and Natanz sites triggering IAEA inspections
• Nov 2003: Iran suspends uranium enrichment and allows tougher inspections
• June 2004: IAEA rebukes Iran for not fully co-operating
• Nov 2004: Iran suspends enrichment under deal with EU
• Aug 2005: Iran rejects EU plan and re-opens Isfahan plant
• Jan 2006: Iran re-opens Natanz facility

* Mined uranium ore is purified and reconstituted into solid form known as yellowcake
* Yellowcake is converted into a gas by heating it to about 64C (147F)
*Gas is fed through centrifuges, where its isotopes separate and process is repeated until uranium is enriched
* Low-level enriched uranium is used for nuclear fuel
* Highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons

Some claim that Iran is a few years away, I somehow doubt it.

Iran is continuing what one British official called its "salami" tactics -- resuming this or that activity without going all out. This makes it difficult for Iran's critics to formulate a joint approach because they might disagree on when the moment for action has come. Confuse the enemy, the oldest trick in the book. Giving control to Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, who has proved umpteen times his agenda is at best naive, and at worst treacherous, will prove to be one of our biggest mistakes.

This exchange between the German magazine Der Spiegel and the United Nations chief weapons inspector Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, also the Director General of IAEA, is priceless, especially in view of the amount of times he 'failed' to detect, or missed the threat entirely. Read the entire article, it absolutely pulvarizes him:

• Before the 1991 Gulf War (before Dr ElBaradei’s appointment), the IAEA failed to detect Saddam’s nuclear programme. After the war, it was startled by the scale of his work to make fissile material.
• Under Dr ElBaradei, the IAEA missed the Libyan nuclear programme, which Libya chose to reveal after the 2003 Iraq war.
• It missed Iran’s 20-year covert nuclear research programme, exposed by Iranian dissidents three years ago.
• It failed to detect the “nuclear supermarket” run by A. Q. Khan, the Pakistani scientist who sold plans and components to Libya, North Korea and Iran.
• It was slow to sound the alarm about North Korea’s conversion of its civil nuclear power into a weapons programme. The US accused North Korea of weapons ambitions in 2002.

One must not forget that once a country gains access to this technology, it can simply withdraw from the NPT (as North Korea did) and use its stocks of weapons-usable uranium or plutonium to make further weapons.

As the brilliant Gerard Vanderleun @ American Digest said, whilst on the famous interview couch with Siggy today:

One the one hand we have the Religion of Islam (and by this I mean a very broad swath of Islam and NOT the popular PC group we call 'Islamic Fundamentalism'). On the other hand we have the Religion of Freedom, by which I mean the entire concept of personal and social freedom as most highly expressed by American Liberalism today. That this far edge of freedom is determined to give, in the name of freedom, the edge to Islam and its determination to destroy all individual freedom in the name of submission to on god, theirs, is the leading irony of our time. For, at the far edge of personal freedom, we see that this concept is indeed a suicide pact between liberalism and its deepest values.

Comments

[Kenny Pierce]

Rob,

While air strikes are certainly an option, I am deeply skeptical that they will have long term effect.

They don't have to. They just have to give us time to free up troops in Iraq and enable indigenous rebellion in Iran, both of which are tasks that one may reasonably hope could be accomplished within an eighteen-month window (though naturally there are no guarantees). I think antimedia is right that Ahmadinejad is "trying to exploit a rapidly closing window of opportunity." We need only postpone his acquisition of nuclear weapons out past the point at which that window has closed.

[Kenny Pierce]

Rob,

Stephen Green at Vodkapundit has been making good sense about Iran for a long time now. Start with his most recent and work backward.

Ghost, do you seriously expect us to believe that (a) had we been a sufficiently anti-war country to have been unwilling to attack Iraq, we would now suddenly have the national balls to invade Iran, and that (b) if we were not in Iraq and were now discussing an invasion of Iran from the Persian Gulf area with a still-insane but still-fully-armed Saddam next door, you would be screaming, "Hell, yeah, let's go get the Iranian bastards"? Because if you don't expect us to believe both of those highly dubious propositions then your post is dishonest in the extreme.

[antimedia]

I doubt anyone knows what the right answer is vis-a-vis Iran. It would be nice if we could muster worldwide support, but Europe seems bent on appeasement again and Russia and China are firmly (or at least leaning towards being) in Iran's corner. I think it's foolhardy to assume that Ahmadinejad isn't absolutely serious when he says he intends to use nuclear weapons, especially in the light of his apocalyptic vision, which he has articulated more than once.

So something must be done. But what? The US has Iran "surrounded", with troops on both sides, so launching strikes against them would be much easier than it might otherwise have been. Iran has been fighting a proxy war in the south of Iraq for two years now, with limited success. They may have come to the realization that the Iraqis don't want them and they won't have a significant role to play there.

There are ruminations that a significant portion of the Iranian population is chafing under the strict rule of the mullahs and would be amenable to assistance in a rebellion, but without the support of air power and special forces, that would probably fail and cost thousands of Iranian lives.

I don't buy Ghost's "analysis" at all. He's wrong on several points and emphasizing the most negative possible scenario in others, but there can be no doubt that our troops are being utilized close to their maximum, meaning we cannot long sustain a large conflict in addition to staying in Iraq.

OTOH, the Sunnis in western Iraq are engaged in armed conflict with Al Qaeda in Iraq, the political solution seems to be coalescing and the Iraqi security forces now number over 230,000. It may well be that our forces could turn their attention toward Iran in the near future (three to six months) and leave Iraq to the Iraqis with minimal support. I have no doubt that Ahmadinejad is fully aware of our presence and of our troops' pending availability. This may explain why he is so belligerent now - he's trying to exploit a rapidly closing window of opportunity.

I personally think the best option is a variation on the Afghani campaign - the use of special forces and significant air assets could destablize the regime, giving those Iranians who really want change the opportunity to take advantage of the vacuum without us having to commit large numbers of ground troops. If we've learned anything from Afghanistan and Iraq, it's that we can put significant firepower on a target, using laser-guided munitions, with a relatively low committment of personnel and assets. And we can compliment thost assets with Predator drones, armed with missles, to take out strategic targets.

One thing I think we can all agree on - it's a mess no matter how you look at it. Whether Bush can be blamed for that or not is arguable at best. Had we done nothing for the past four years, would Ahmadinejad still be as crazy as he is right now? I tend to think so, but it's impossible to know for sure.

[Rob]

You'll excuse me, hopefully, for being skeptical, but I really, really don't see a hopeful way out of this. To describe Huan's analysis as "optimistic" is a radical understatement; if the occupation of Iraq is to continue, then those 150000 troops will be forced to remain there, rather than invade and occupy Iran.

If Iran is invaded, then considerably more than 150000 troops will be necessary for its occupation, given the much larger size and population and much more difficult terrain present there. Moreover, this still leaves a relatively healthy insurgency in Iraq, although I suppose one could hope the insurgency would be weakened by an attack on Iran. I'm inclined to think that the situation would be just the opposite, but no one really knows.

This is what I don't understand about the approach of right-bloggers to this situation. I agree with Kristol and Hanson and the others that Iran is a problem, and that military force is a potential solution. I'm a lefty, but not a pacifist. I think that the invasion of Iraq has weakened the US position vis-a-vis Iran, but that's at least a debatable proposition. What I don't understand is why posts such as this one seem to concentrate so much on mockery of leftists and Europeans, and so little on discussing the actually efficacy of force in this situation.

I can be convinced that military force will work against Iran. I have not thus far been presented with a compelling case for how this might work in practice. While air strikes are certainly an option, I am deeply skeptical that they will have long term effect. I am also skeptical of the ability of the United States to successfully carry out an invasion, given the current security environment and our existing commitments.

Do me a favor, and explain how this might work.

[Thom]

If we are stretched by Iraq then what war does one think we should wait for and then we would not be stretched for? Maybe Ghost is advocating just hitting Iran with nukes first? That was we would not be stretched. I am almost at the point to saying just let one of the blue cities be hit to wake them up to the danger that faces them.

[Darrell]

If anyone ever thinks that Ghost has a point, go back and read his other comments on other threads.

If you think Iran is sitting in the cat bird's seat, GD, I suggest you go there as a human shield. Just ask and I'll give you the GPS co-ordinates...And I suggest you look up.

[Huan]

the iraqi war has provided the US with invaluable lessons in terms of counter-insurgency, combat control and command, reconstruction, and public relations on the ground with middle easterners. we are so much better off for it. an invasion of iran is so much easier, and less necessary, with 150000 troops next door to iran (go to a map and look where afghanistan and iraq are with relationship to iran). less necessary as it provide a large border for infiltration short of invasion, and bases for air and land operations.

ghost, your post was dissappointing in providing independent analysis separate from the MSM.

[Ghost Dansing]

Unfortunately this Republican administration's incompetence has put us in a weak position to counter Iran or North Korea.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a report to Congress that said the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan has weakened the U.S. ability to fight other wars.

The strains on the volunteer military from the war in Iraq are now unsettling as many Republicans as Democrats — and exposing an enduring contradiction in President Bush's agenda.

The heavy demands of Afghanistan and Iraq (about 150,000 men and women are deployed) are draining the military of people and equipment. This strain is happening at a cost of about $500 billion a year, if one adds the Fiscal 2005 supplemental defense budget (almost $80 billion) to the rest of the defense budget (almost $420 billion)

The unexpectedly heavy demands of sustained ground combat are depleting military manpower and gear faster than they can be fully replenished. Shortfalls in recruiting and backlogs in needed equipment are taking a toll, and growing numbers of units have been broken apart or taxed by repeated deployments, particularly in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve.

"What keeps me awake at night is, what will this all-volunteer force look like in 2007?" Gen. Richard A. Cody, Army vice chief of staff said at a Senate hearing in early 2005.

The Iraq war has also led to a drop in the overall readiness of U.S. ground forces to handle threats at home and abroad, forcing the Pentagon to accept new risks -- even as military planners prepare for a global anti-terrorism campaign that administration officials say could last for a generation.

Teddy Roosevelt said "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

Dubya says "Shoot off your loud mouth and walk around with 'yer britches down around you ankles."

[Huan]

yes, read the NPT (nuclear nonproliferation treaty).
that should at least get you going on thinking about whether a nation that violates its own treaty to others should be held accountable.
then because the old creaky cogs are turning, think about whether you want such a regime to have nukes.
but don't stop there! ask whether the same regime, having declared an intention to wipe another nation off the map.

israel, pakistan, and india as far as i can recall are not signatories to the NPT.

[Nasty_Ninety]

I can't help but think that these people who do not understand what is driving people like Ahmadinejad are like sheep who are in a pasture grazing. All they are concerned about is their daily life, what they will eat, where they will go to graze on thier next tender blade of grass. It's almost like they have the attitude that the wolf they are seeing as never eaten one of their flock, so why worry? Maybe they are like sheep who have never seen a wolf in thier lives and don't even know that they should be concerned? One has to wonder.

[Liquid]

As Sig pointed out, this is nothing new in Iran since previous regimes have had the same ideas on nukes and their plans towards Israel, but I would like to add that although many use the term "crazy" when describing Ahmadinejad, you must sit back and also realise that sometimes crazy is a type of strategy. For those that follow Islamic prophecies, they understand what is driving Ahmadinejad's madness, and there is no doubt he is on a mission that sanctions or slaps on the wrist from the UN will not deter. It's not just him either, because Iran's muslims are beginning to embrace the idea too, there are actual mahdi type hotlines in the country and just this week those muslims from Iran that went to mecca for their Islamic pilgrimage were chanting death to America and Israel openly, you can read that and the link to that on my blog So much for trusting the "peace of Islam" when it concerns Iranians and I don't think ever before has Iran had a president that actually built a road and is planning Tehran for the arrival of the Mahadi. If anyone doesn't understand what a threat Iran's President and it's mullahs are, not only to Israel and the rest of us, then they really need to catch up on the evil unfolding right before their eyes!

[North by Northwest]

The simple truth is that the US, Britain, France 'inherited' their nuclear arsenal from the cold war period during which the nuclear threat assembled by the western powers was solely that of a deterrent against communist Soviet Union. Israel was 'issued' with nuclear war-heads for the exact same reasons: Israel's nuclear weapons solely existed and still exist for deterring it's hostile Arab neighbors from being attacked and destroyed. There has never been even the remotest sign or indication that Israel would ever use its nukes for any other reason than that of last resort self-defense. There is absolutely no voice or suggestion anywhere that Israel has any aspirations to eliminate or destroy its Arab neighbors, neither with the help of conventional nor with the help of nuclear weaponry.

In glaringly stark contrast, for decades now leading political, cultural and religious representatives of virtually every Arab nation have not ceased nor tired to declare their uttermost intend to destroy Israel as soon as possible. All have in countless references marveled at the prospect of achieving that very goal with the help of a nuclear strike, marveled at the 'simplicity' and 'finality' with which the nuclear solution could bring forth their victory.

What are Western govts supposed to do? Go to war to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities? We didn't got to war to stop Russia, or China, or India, or Pakistan...or N. Korea. Why is Iran so different from all those other now nuclear powers?

This is obviously not a new question, but an ongoing struggle. A good start to get a better understanding is the Arms Control Association' website. Especially the background information in "The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty: History and Current Problems, which highlights the efforts made and the problems encountered. It clearly explains why Iran, Pakistan and N. Korea in particular are different.

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

"Why is Iran so different from all those other now nuclear powers?"

Because on more than one occasion, 2 different leaders of that country said they were ready to USE nuclear weapons.

That's the difference.

[majella77]

What are Western govts supposed to do?

Go to war to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities?

We didn't got to war to stop Russia, or China, or India, or Pakistan...or N. Korea.

Why is Iran so different from all those other now nuclear powers?