Wow, busy two weeks here at work. Not to say that things haven't been happening...in fact, this has quietly been the most significant two week period in terms of happenings since I started this blog.
Iran
Diplomatically, Iran is winning, hands down. President Obama offered up the hand of friendship to Iranian leadership on their lunar new year...and promptly had it bitten off.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62N2XZ20100324
http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-47155320100323
Why on earth would Iran care what the US thinks, when even our partners feel free to blow us off? They're winning (since they're getting what they want with minimal repercussions), we're losing, so why alter course?
To whit: The Israeli announcement of 1600 additional housing units while Vice-President Biden was in Israel several weeks ago. Canada got in on the act too, and is pulling all their troops from Afghanistan.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EP1ALG0&show_article=1
Another slap at US diplomatic clout was the Russian announcement of finishing construction on nuclear reactors for Iran even as Secretary of State Clinton was visiting to pressure Russia to back sanctions on Iran.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100318/pl_nm/us_russia_usa_iran
What is interesting to note is that the US went ballistic when Netanyahu's cabinet minister made the announcement, and has remained very muted on this one. Perhaps it is Russia's additional clout, perhaps it is because we feel that we need them to get sanctions through. Another explanation is that meaningful sanctions and preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon are a low priority. There are indications that the administration regards a nuclear Iran as fait accompli, and that it is a problem that can be managed and contained. They have offered Israel missile shields, protection guarantees, and have pushed them on the Palestinian issue, which they believe to be a more immediate threat to Israel than Iranian nuclear weapons.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2010/0323/1224266874275.html?via=rel
This blog was correct in another of its predictions: the US has weakened its sanctions proposal in order to bring China on board. At this stage, given the very limited nature of the sanctions proposed, the White House is putting an optimistic face forward. So does the DoS. However, there still has been no apparent movement by China on the issue.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/26/world/la-fg-iran-sanctions26-2010mar26
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/world/middleeast/31prexy.html
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/clinton-china-to-be-involved-in-iran-sanctions-push-19985.html
Still, analysts handicapping the situation believe that China will eventually agree to some form of carefully targeted sanctions on Iran. However, it's a good bet that whatever gets put in place, it won't hurt the Chinese bottom line in trade: whether via legal or black market means.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N26135393.htm
********Breaking News*********
China has changed it's position and will now officially consider sanctions at the UN. There will likely be a lot of haggling, more watering down of the sanctions, and passage in a few months.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/31/officials-say-china-discuss-iran-sanctions/?test=latestnews
So, looking back to the beginning of this month, the following assessment still stands and appears to be the direction we're headed.
"If China agrees to sanctions, it will only agree to weak ones which do not interfere with its trade with Iran. This seems to be a likely option, since it allows the other nations to declare diplomatic victory, go home, and ignore the problem for another couple of years while stating “we need to give sanctions a chance to work”. Too bad Iran will have a weapon in as little as 18 months."
Speaking of Iran's drive for nuclear weapons, this week the CIA confirmed two things which this blog speculated about months ago. Firstly, Iran does indeed appear to be following a dual track program of enrichment and nuclear weapon building, with the goal of being able to "plug and play" their fissile materials into a nearly complete weapon as soon as the enrichment and shaping of the implosion core can be completed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/30/cia-iran-has-capability-to-produce-nuke-weapons/
This was predicted back in the 3 February posting. No mention of the warhead type or methodology is made in the new report.
As senior Iranian nuclear scientist has now been confirmed to have defected while in Saudi Arabia. This was originally posted (and speculated on) in the December 24th posting, and the suspicion proved to be correct.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/iran-nuclear-scientist-defects-us-cia-intelligence-coup/story?id=10231729
This is likely the source of the new CIA data on the progress and plan for Iran's nuclear program, as well as the more definitive timetables and insight into their decision making process. Given the CIA's dismal record on WMD in Iraq and the the laughable 2007 NIE estimate, this may be the first time in a long while we can take the intelligence community's assessment of the Iranian weapons program seriously. Keep in mind, earlier estimates were saying Iran might not have a weapon until 2015 or later.
Iran has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar again, training and equipping the Taliban.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/terrorism/taliban-fighters-being-taught-at-secret-camps-in-iran-19941.html
No surprise here. As the U.S. looks weaker and weaker on foreign policy, Iran will continue to step it up, and find way of indirectly attacking their enemies, just as we would do.
The Korean Peninsula
This past week the back end of a South Korean 1,200 ton frigate exploded and fell off, causing the front half of the ship to sink relatively quickly. 46 South Korean sailors are believed dead. US and Korean Naval officials have denied that it was a torpedo, although explanations of suicide divers and mines have been offered. North Korea has been quiet on the issue, but has been unusually belligerent in its rhetoric lately.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/31/president-puts-military-on-alert-after-ship-blast/
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2010/0329/South-Korea-s-Cheonan-ship-sinking-mystery-A-North-Korea-mine
The most prominent theory is a mine, with it being uncertain whether it was a Korean War vintage mine that did it (1950-1953), or one placed more recently by the North in order to send a message. What is certain is that the uncertainty has paralyzed South Korea diplomatically. They can't blame the North until the investigation is complete, the North has deniability (it was really old, we didn't know it was there, we don't know who put it there back in 50-53). Additionally, by the time the investigation is complete, public desire for vengeance will have cooled, and the incident will be almost forgotten on the world stage. Thus, it is very unlikely that even if it is determined the mine was placed there recently, that the US and South Korea will take any real action.
Why is this significant? Because Iran and China are taking their cues on how far they can push the US, once they have nuclear weapons, without retaliation directly from North Korea's actions. A Chinese general said this, on the record, only a month ago (see previous postings for link)
As a result, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, expect all sorts of US ships to run into "previously unknown mines lost during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war."
Iraq
Finally, a bit of good news. Votes in the Iraqi election have been tallied, and Illad Allawi's centrist coalition won a plurality, putting them in the best position to form a coalition government. What is good about this is that it is speculated this will pull Iraq further from the Iranian sphere of influence, and allow the Iraqi government to draw more support from other regional Arab leaders.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/iraq/analysis-allawi-win-could-curb-irans-influence-19980.html
Afghanistan
As noted previously noted, the Canadians wil no longer support the mission in Afghanistan. The Japanese have already pulled their tankers supporting logistics in the Indian Ocean. Iran is training the Taliban, and US contractors have been cutting corners on training Afghani police, producing recruits completely incapable of conducting the most basic of police functions.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/235221/page/1
The U.S. has announced it will take back the city of Khanadahar in June. I'd guess they're doing this if they regard the approach to Marjah as having been successful.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/30/AR2010033004090.html?wprss=rss_world
Terrorism
It's taken a couple of weeks, but the national media has finally caught up with the danger of "boob bombs" described in a February 4th posting here.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/24/terrorists-use-explosives-breast-implants-crash-planes-experts-warn/
The underwear bomber has said this, and MI 5 picked up on it, but now appears to be circular reporting. Still, this remains the next step in al Qaeda's continued attempts to bring air travel to a screeching halt. So far, we don't have a counter move. For more commentary, refer to the previous post on this topic.
Israel
The fallout from the Vice President Biden's visit to Israel continues. Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House last week, and was afforded none of the usual pomp and circumstance usually afforded visiting world leaders. No photo ops, Bibi taking the side entrance, and his entourage being left to their own devices while the President went to eat dinner without him invited. No notes on the meeting were released.
After the meeting, an Israeli paper claimed a Netanyahu confidant had told them Netanyahu described President Obama as "Israel's greatest disaster". Netanyahu vehemently denied this, along with White House adviser David Axelrod.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/obama-netanyahu-meeting-n_n_512051.html
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/03/28/WH-Obama-intended-no-snub-of-Netanyahu/UPI-64361269806346/
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE62R0HT20100328
There is a belief that the two sides discussed settlements (Jerusalem in particular), Iran, and the differences between the administration and Israel. Central among them is the Israeli stance that a nuclear armed Iran is the most immediate existential threat to Israel, while the WH and DoS espouse the viewpoint that Iran won't do anything while the US is protecting Israel, and that the most significant threat to Israel's existence is their failure to resolve the issues with the Palestinians.
Given the history of Jews in Europe, Israelis (particularly older ones) are extremely wary of placing their fate in the hands of non-Jewish governments who promise to protect them. Even the United States did a horrific job of protecting Jews fleeing Europe, and believing tales of atrocities. (See the St. Louis incident for details).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_St._Louis
Many Israelis were shocked at the treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Some American left wing Jews, heretofore allies of the President, have turned on President Obama, while not giving up on him entirely.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2010/03/23_dershowitz.html
There has been speculation that the Obama administration wants regime change by convincing the Israeli people the only way forward to peace is by removing Netanyahu. Already some of the more liberal Israeli papers (Haaretz) are beginning to tow this line. Howver, it remains to be seen how much traction this gets. President Obama is deeply unpopular with right wing Israelis (27% of all Israelis think he's an anti-Semite, 72% of self identified conservatives), and the middle is ambivalent.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1157483.html
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171849
Commentators examining the path the Iran / Israel story arc is taking are producing some good analyses of alternatives.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62N2I9
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE62N1CX
The article above represents conventional thinking, albeit well organzed and fairly comprehensive thoughts. There are two arguments I would make with it, however.
"Israel would be loath to attack Iranian energy assets, like oil production and shipping facilities."
It might be risky, but the only way to bring down the Iranian regime or to delay their nuclear program more than a few years is to disrupt the Iranian economy so badly that the Basiji and Revolutionary guard aren't receiving living wages anymore (sparking an unopposed revolution like what happened in Romania or East Germany), or that the economy completely collapses and the government puts aside the nuclear program to make sure enough cash is a vailable to stave off the revolution described above.
Additionally, neither article considers what would happen if Israel decided that the only course of action which guarantees their survival as a nation and race is to completely destroy Iran as a functioning government and economy. Easiest way to do this is with EMP (as discussed previously)
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Intel Update for 16 March 2010
Time marches on, and there's been some interesting movements here.
Iran
Iran briefly moved its uranium supplies above ground, and then right back into the Natanz facility. There was some speculation that this was to tempt Israel into making a move, but more likely it was purely for logistical reasons.
http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/01/Iran_moves_enriched_uranium_stock_back_underground_r/
China is now officially Iran's largest trading partner.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100315/wl_mideast_afp/iranchinanuclearpoliticseconomy
This probably has a lot to do with how China reacted to the visit from prominent Israeli economist Stanley Fischer last month. More on that later.
Sanctions on Iran will likely not be voted on by the UN until June. If China refuses to go along with them, it is likely the European Union will impose them unilaterally.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/u.n.-iran-sanctions-may-take-until-june-kouchner-19908.html
Given the apparent Israeli position of waiting this out, this delay won't have much effect. However, it does complicate the picture diplomatically for Israel if most countries have sanctions on Iran, but the most important one (China) does not...
In the "Gee, why are they bothering going through the motions." category, I dug up this old quote by Joe Biden from 2008 where he states that he doesn't believe sanctions will work.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=68135§ionid=351020104
In the "As if he couldn't get any more annoying" category, President Amadhinejad called 9/11 a big lie, adding "truther" to "Holocaust denier" on his resume.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100306/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran
People often ask why it's ok for Israel to have nukes, but for Iran not to. See evidence above, that Iran is NOT controlled by rational individuals making decisions based on a commonly perceived reality. World leaders don't spend nights awake worrying that Israel will obliterate a neighbor with nukes, since they have had them for 40+ years in all likelihood, and if the Yom Kippur War wasn't enough to trigger it, not much will. Iran? People wonder if they would use them at random based on some cleric thinking Allah told him to.
Recently, General Petraeus submitted written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Comittee which alleges Iran is harboring Al Qaeda elements and sponsoring terrorism. He also suggests that intelligence indicates Iran has encountered difficulties in building a nuclear weapon and that their schedule has slid to the right. Additionally, he believes a resumption of serious peace talks by Israel would undercut many of Iran's positions.
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/17/1011164/petraeus-peace-could-undercut-iran-threat
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/world/middleeast/17military.html
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-17/petraeus-says-u-s-doesn-t-see-inevitable-iran-bomb-update1-.html
Honestly, 18 months is probably the shortest timetable possible right now for Iran to develop a viable nuclear weapon.
China
China has received pressure from the UAE, Saudia Arabia, and the UK regarding sanctions on Iran recently. The UK is confident that China will not stand alone against the world. While admitting that Iran is a serious problem, China's official policy continues to be that diplomacy is the only appropriate avenue.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/britain-says-china-wont-risk-isolation-over-iran-19894.html
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/china-knows-its-duties-in-iran-nuclear-tussle-saudi-19909.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62F2WK20100316
Additionally, a few weeks back Israel sent one of its top economists (Stanley Fischer) to try to convince China that sanctions on Iran wouldn't damage the Chinese economy. He failed to make any headway, and shortly after he left China publicly re-iterated its position that sanctions were off the table.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100224/wl_nm/us_israel_china_iran
China's decisions always revolve around maximizing their own economic interests. Very rarely do they take a stand on principle. Simply put, Israel doesn't have monetary leverage to get China to act on Iran. Perhaps other countries do...
Afghanistan
There are conflicting reports about the Afghani government's reaction to the capture of Mullah Baradar (the #2 Taliban of Afghanistan) in Pakistan with the help of US intelligence.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589405,00.html?test=latestnews
Karzai's office denies these reports.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62F2C020100316
I tend to discount the denial, since reconciliation with the Taliban has been the cornerstone of Karzai's plan for how to bring the civil war in Afghanistan to a close. Remember that Karzai was not a big proponent of the surge, since he favored a negotiated political solution to the situation.
Department of state workers in Afghanistan are extremely unhappy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/10/AR2010031003975.html
So, 80 hours weeks, 1 year tours, not enough people to do all the things they are supposed to do, and crappy to non-existent turnovers from their predecessors. Sound like what pretty much every Marine in the region puts up with too, except they get shot at a lot more, but don't get paid as much and whine less.
Terrorism
CIA director Leon Panetta told the media Wednesday that U.S. airstrikes have al Qaeda on the run.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/17/official-al-qaeda-leader-played-role-cia-bombing-killed/
Given the number of high ranking members killed, and the capture of the cave complex described in a link in the last blog, what Panetta says does not appear to be hyperbole, although it should be noted this blog hinted at the same 2 weeks ago...
Israel
Vice President Biden's visit to Israel last week turned into a diplomatic disaster. While visiting, one of Netanyahu's cabinet members announced the new construction of 1600 housing units in east Jerusalem. Netanyahu presented Biden with a broken gift at a state dinner. Perhaps it was payback for Biden's insistence that Israel should just learn to live with a nuclear Iran back in 2008.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=68135§ionid=351020104
After Biden's return to the US, the DoS responded harshly, calling the move insulting. Some commentators described US - Israeli relations as the lowest in 35 years. Israel has apologized, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has promised to investigate the timing of this announcement.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100313/wl_afp/mideastconflictisraelusprobe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1257887/U-S-fury-Hillary-Clinton-accuses-Israel-insulting-Joe-Biden-visit.html
Given that the settlement announcement was made by an ultra-right cabinet minister, it seems possible this was done by a rogue cabinet member wanting to take a swipe at Biden and the Obama administration.
There has been some speculation that the Obama administration has been trying to create regime change in Israel.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hfN-O_PsuDUAvRqVJauM5zDQhY9w
It would not be the first time the US has worked to effect regime change in Israel. In 1999 President Clinton gave permission to James Carville to take some time off as a political advisor to his administration to be a political consultant for Labor Party Leader Ehud Barak during his 1999 campaign, in the Labor Party's efforts to unseat then Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu (who was not well liked by the Clinton administration either). Barak did eventually win, but this was not enough to help President Clinton push through the peace process. Yassir Arafat dug in his heels, wouldn't make concessions, and the Camp David accords of 2000 fell apart, leaving President Clinton furious at the Palestinian negotiators.
Iran
Iran briefly moved its uranium supplies above ground, and then right back into the Natanz facility. There was some speculation that this was to tempt Israel into making a move, but more likely it was purely for logistical reasons.
http://article.wn.com/view/2010/03/01/Iran_moves_enriched_uranium_stock_back_underground_r/
China is now officially Iran's largest trading partner.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100315/wl_mideast_afp/iranchinanuclearpoliticseconomy
This probably has a lot to do with how China reacted to the visit from prominent Israeli economist Stanley Fischer last month. More on that later.
Sanctions on Iran will likely not be voted on by the UN until June. If China refuses to go along with them, it is likely the European Union will impose them unilaterally.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/u.n.-iran-sanctions-may-take-until-june-kouchner-19908.html
Given the apparent Israeli position of waiting this out, this delay won't have much effect. However, it does complicate the picture diplomatically for Israel if most countries have sanctions on Iran, but the most important one (China) does not...
In the "Gee, why are they bothering going through the motions." category, I dug up this old quote by Joe Biden from 2008 where he states that he doesn't believe sanctions will work.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=68135§ionid=351020104
In the "As if he couldn't get any more annoying" category, President Amadhinejad called 9/11 a big lie, adding "truther" to "Holocaust denier" on his resume.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100306/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran
People often ask why it's ok for Israel to have nukes, but for Iran not to. See evidence above, that Iran is NOT controlled by rational individuals making decisions based on a commonly perceived reality. World leaders don't spend nights awake worrying that Israel will obliterate a neighbor with nukes, since they have had them for 40+ years in all likelihood, and if the Yom Kippur War wasn't enough to trigger it, not much will. Iran? People wonder if they would use them at random based on some cleric thinking Allah told him to.
Recently, General Petraeus submitted written testimony to the Senate Armed Services Comittee which alleges Iran is harboring Al Qaeda elements and sponsoring terrorism. He also suggests that intelligence indicates Iran has encountered difficulties in building a nuclear weapon and that their schedule has slid to the right. Additionally, he believes a resumption of serious peace talks by Israel would undercut many of Iran's positions.
http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/17/1011164/petraeus-peace-could-undercut-iran-threat
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/world/middleeast/17military.html
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-17/petraeus-says-u-s-doesn-t-see-inevitable-iran-bomb-update1-.html
Honestly, 18 months is probably the shortest timetable possible right now for Iran to develop a viable nuclear weapon.
China
China has received pressure from the UAE, Saudia Arabia, and the UK regarding sanctions on Iran recently. The UK is confident that China will not stand alone against the world. While admitting that Iran is a serious problem, China's official policy continues to be that diplomacy is the only appropriate avenue.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/britain-says-china-wont-risk-isolation-over-iran-19894.html
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/china-knows-its-duties-in-iran-nuclear-tussle-saudi-19909.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62F2WK20100316
Additionally, a few weeks back Israel sent one of its top economists (Stanley Fischer) to try to convince China that sanctions on Iran wouldn't damage the Chinese economy. He failed to make any headway, and shortly after he left China publicly re-iterated its position that sanctions were off the table.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100224/wl_nm/us_israel_china_iran
China's decisions always revolve around maximizing their own economic interests. Very rarely do they take a stand on principle. Simply put, Israel doesn't have monetary leverage to get China to act on Iran. Perhaps other countries do...
Afghanistan
There are conflicting reports about the Afghani government's reaction to the capture of Mullah Baradar (the #2 Taliban of Afghanistan) in Pakistan with the help of US intelligence.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589405,00.html?test=latestnews
Karzai's office denies these reports.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62F2C020100316
I tend to discount the denial, since reconciliation with the Taliban has been the cornerstone of Karzai's plan for how to bring the civil war in Afghanistan to a close. Remember that Karzai was not a big proponent of the surge, since he favored a negotiated political solution to the situation.
Department of state workers in Afghanistan are extremely unhappy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/10/AR2010031003975.html
So, 80 hours weeks, 1 year tours, not enough people to do all the things they are supposed to do, and crappy to non-existent turnovers from their predecessors. Sound like what pretty much every Marine in the region puts up with too, except they get shot at a lot more, but don't get paid as much and whine less.
Terrorism
CIA director Leon Panetta told the media Wednesday that U.S. airstrikes have al Qaeda on the run.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/03/17/official-al-qaeda-leader-played-role-cia-bombing-killed/
Given the number of high ranking members killed, and the capture of the cave complex described in a link in the last blog, what Panetta says does not appear to be hyperbole, although it should be noted this blog hinted at the same 2 weeks ago...
Israel
Vice President Biden's visit to Israel last week turned into a diplomatic disaster. While visiting, one of Netanyahu's cabinet members announced the new construction of 1600 housing units in east Jerusalem. Netanyahu presented Biden with a broken gift at a state dinner. Perhaps it was payback for Biden's insistence that Israel should just learn to live with a nuclear Iran back in 2008.
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=68135§ionid=351020104
After Biden's return to the US, the DoS responded harshly, calling the move insulting. Some commentators described US - Israeli relations as the lowest in 35 years. Israel has apologized, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has promised to investigate the timing of this announcement.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100313/wl_afp/mideastconflictisraelusprobe
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1257887/U-S-fury-Hillary-Clinton-accuses-Israel-insulting-Joe-Biden-visit.html
Given that the settlement announcement was made by an ultra-right cabinet minister, it seems possible this was done by a rogue cabinet member wanting to take a swipe at Biden and the Obama administration.
There has been some speculation that the Obama administration has been trying to create regime change in Israel.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hfN-O_PsuDUAvRqVJauM5zDQhY9w
It would not be the first time the US has worked to effect regime change in Israel. In 1999 President Clinton gave permission to James Carville to take some time off as a political advisor to his administration to be a political consultant for Labor Party Leader Ehud Barak during his 1999 campaign, in the Labor Party's efforts to unseat then Prime Minister Bejamin Netanyahu (who was not well liked by the Clinton administration either). Barak did eventually win, but this was not enough to help President Clinton push through the peace process. Yassir Arafat dug in his heels, wouldn't make concessions, and the Camp David accords of 2000 fell apart, leaving President Clinton furious at the Palestinian negotiators.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Weekly Intel Update for 4 MAR 2010
Sorry that I missed a week here. Hopefully the goodies in this week’s batch make up for it.
Iran
This blog tries to remain politically neutral, but some recent poll results makes it clear that the authors opinion are reflective of one particular viewpoint.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/02/fox-news-poll-iran-bomb-equals-disaster/
“A Fox News poll released Tuesday finds that 60 percent of voters think force will be required to stop Iran, while 25 percent think diplomacy and sanctions alone will work.
Just over half of Democrats (51 percent) and independents (51 percent) think force will be necessary, as do three-quarters of Republicans (75 percent).
If Iran were to obtain the capability to use nuclear weapons, 56 percent think that would be “a disaster,” while 37 percent call it “a problem that can be managed” and 3 percent say it wouldn’t be a problem at all.
Despite a slim majority of Democrats thinking it would be a disaster (51 percent), a large minority think it would be a problem that could be managed (42 percent). In stark contrast, Republicans -- by a wide 36 point margin -- think Iran with nukes would be a disaster (60 percent).”
My first thought upon reading this was that the poll was interviewing the wrong people: they should have been polling Israelis because the US government has already made it clear that the military option is off the table. However, here’s a brief list of questions that need to be answered by the people who believe negotiations will work, and / or that a nuclear Iran is a problem that can be managed.
1. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, can Israeli actions be managed? Given the Israeli history of unpredictability and sudden, violent unilateral action, plus the frosty relations between Israel and the U.S. at the moment, this seems unlikely. U.S. control is limited when they perceive an existential threat (Six Day War), and previous strikes at Syrian and Iraqi nuclear facilities illustrates they really don’t care what the rest of the world thinks.
2. Can the consequences of Israeli military action be managed? If Iran takes it on the chin from Israel, and Iran retains a capability to retaliate, they can wreak havoc on other Gulf states’ oil production and distribution operations. There’s no way we can stop the damage to the economy this will cause.
3. Why would you think diplomacy would work? We’ve been negotiating with Iran in multi-party talks since 2005. In that time, the Iranian position has not changed a whit, and their program has marched forward completely unimpeded (except by covert Israeli actions). Also consider the 15 years of negotiations with North Korea over their nuclear weapons program, and the success it has enjoyed.
4. What makes you think you can get sanctions past China? China is Iran’s #1 trade partner, and in return China is getting lots of cheap oil, and slowly sending its tendrils into the Iranian oil production infrastructure. China has so far shown no inclination to alter its position.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/china-says-pushing-for-diplomatic-solution-on-iran-19848.html
5. Even if you get sanctions past China, will they be strong enough to have the desired effect? If China agrees to sanctions, it will only agree to weak ones which do not interfere with its trade with Iran. This seems to be a likely option, since it allows the other nations to declare diplomatic victory, go home, and ignore the problem for another couple of years while stating “we need to give sanctions a chance to work”. Too bad Iran will have a weapon in as little as 18 months.
6. Even if you do (somehow) get very strong sanctions through, what makes you think they would work? Sudan weathered sanctions amidst Darfur. Saddam Hussein got filthy rich off the black market for his oil during the 12 years of sanctions between 1991 and 2003. Iran has been sanctioned for years with targeted sanctions, and it has barely slowed down their nuclear program. They’re still acquiring weapons and nuclear related materials with relative ease (and distributing them to their proxies in Gaza and Lebanon). North Korea has been under sanctions for years. During the famine of 1995-1998, 2.5 to 3 million North Koreans died of starvation (10% of the North Korean population). Compare this with the Ethiopian famine of 1984-1985 where 1 million people died (less than 3% ). North Korea’s nuclear program continued right through this. The moral of this is that even if you imposed sanctions on Iran that were so strong you killed off 10% of the country, there’s still no reason to believe it would actually stop their nuclear program, based on historical evidence. http://www.iranfocus.com/en/terrorism/italy-arrests-seven-for-smuggling-arms-to-iran-19847.html
This is not to be partisan, but merely to look at this as logically as possible. Iran wants nuclear weapons, and the evidence strongly suggests that options other than force have a very low (close to zero) probability of succeeding.
This next article confirms earlier speculation that we will not see sanctions until this June at the earliest.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100301/usa/iran_nuclear_politics_us_sanctions
Once again, the question this begs is not what will the G5+1 do or how they will react, but how will it affect the other actor sitting on the sidelines who has everything on the line. What message does it send? How will it be received? Odds are, Israel will wait until what it regards as the last possible instant (based on intelligence) to make it’s move. That would push the timeframe out to 18-36 months (at the latest).
Pakistan
Pakistan has been fighting militants more effectively now than at any time since 9/11.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/pakistan.militants/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/02/pakistan.taliban.commanders.killed/index.html?iref=allsearch
What’s significant here is that the Pakistani army fought back, didn’t retreat, and inflicted heavy casualties. Will to fight has always been an issue. The bigger one has been the ISI.
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/03/whatever-happened-to-bin-laden/
Some analysts believe that the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) knows where bin Laden is, and are holding out on us because as long as he’s out there, Pakistan can keep milking the U.S. for military aid and support against India.
In a bit of good news, the Pakistanis locals have evicted al Qaeda from its stronghold on the border. Given the scope of these tunnels, and how much stuff they left behind in their hurry to escape, this is a good thing.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Afghanistan/network-150-al-qaeda-caves-captured-afghan-border/story?id=10000854
1. If you leave in a hurry, you’re probably not moving to a better hiding spot. This means we’ll have better opportunities to catch or kill some of these guys as they scurry for cover.
2. There’s plenty of intelligence to be had here. We’ll find stuff. Don’t think for a moment that the CIA won’t go all CSI on this stuff given an opportunity (what kind of pollen is on the blankets? What sort of DNA can we recover? How old are the cells we recovered? Who do they belong to? What kind of minerals / mud are on the equipment? Did they leave behind documents? Computers? Storage media? Who made the weapons? When? What about fingerprints on the weapons? If we catch someone later, and want to figure out if they’re al Qaeda affiliates, we’ll have the goods in our database.)
The bad news? The locals say the foreigners are fleeing to Yemen and Somalia rather than back across the Pakistan / Afghanistan border.
Terrorism
A noted Islamic scholar produced what is considered the most thoroughly researched Fatwa against suicide attacks to date.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35660866/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Some would argue this is a significant step. However I think it will have a minimal effect. Islamic extremism and violence is probably more a cultural function than a religious one. In fact, I would regard violent Islamic ideology as more of a catalyst than as a cause. It provides a convenient excuse to behave in a way in which you were already inclined. There’s no argument that Turkish Muslims tend to be very different from Arabic ones, or Malaysians, or Pakistanis. There’s a darned good reason why most of the big terrorist acts of the past decade came from a handful of countries, and almost exclusively from one self identified cultural group. (We’ll leave the answer to the reader). Note that the author of this Fatwa does not come from the same cultural background as the majority of suicide bombers.
Israel
A few weeks ago, the center-left Brookings institution ran a war game that simulated what would happen if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear facilities. What it found was that things spun out of control afterwards, and everyone but Iran really suffered in the aftermath.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/21/87061/war-game-shows-how-attacking-iran.html
All I can say to this is...all right, all right, we get it. A conventional strike by Israel only makes things worse. A couple of months ago another war game reached similar conclusions. The problem is, none of these think tanks is thinking outside the box.
Israel certainly pays attention to these war games. They certainly have their own. Their intelligence on Iran surpasses our own, frankly (we had no idea Syria was building a nuclear facility until after the Israelis blew it up). So, why on earth would Israel mount a conventional strike if it would only set Iran's nuclear program back a little bit, and might fail entirely? Why would they do what everyone expects them to do? Why would they telegraph their punches? Why would they mount their attacks the same way they attacked Syria and Iraq's facilities? All of these would cede the element of strategic surprise.
What I want to know is why in a room full of PhD's would none of them stop to ask: If Israel believes a conventional strike will not help their situation, sanctions and diplomacy are doomed to fail, and a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable, what will they do instead? If you accept these premises, then the remaining option is something unconventional. Somehow, despite these reasonable assumptions of Israeli thought processes, none of our think tank experts has reached this conclusion, has chosen to war game it, or discus it openly.
Iran
This blog tries to remain politically neutral, but some recent poll results makes it clear that the authors opinion are reflective of one particular viewpoint.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/02/fox-news-poll-iran-bomb-equals-disaster/
“A Fox News poll released Tuesday finds that 60 percent of voters think force will be required to stop Iran, while 25 percent think diplomacy and sanctions alone will work.
Just over half of Democrats (51 percent) and independents (51 percent) think force will be necessary, as do three-quarters of Republicans (75 percent).
If Iran were to obtain the capability to use nuclear weapons, 56 percent think that would be “a disaster,” while 37 percent call it “a problem that can be managed” and 3 percent say it wouldn’t be a problem at all.
Despite a slim majority of Democrats thinking it would be a disaster (51 percent), a large minority think it would be a problem that could be managed (42 percent). In stark contrast, Republicans -- by a wide 36 point margin -- think Iran with nukes would be a disaster (60 percent).”
My first thought upon reading this was that the poll was interviewing the wrong people: they should have been polling Israelis because the US government has already made it clear that the military option is off the table. However, here’s a brief list of questions that need to be answered by the people who believe negotiations will work, and / or that a nuclear Iran is a problem that can be managed.
1. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, can Israeli actions be managed? Given the Israeli history of unpredictability and sudden, violent unilateral action, plus the frosty relations between Israel and the U.S. at the moment, this seems unlikely. U.S. control is limited when they perceive an existential threat (Six Day War), and previous strikes at Syrian and Iraqi nuclear facilities illustrates they really don’t care what the rest of the world thinks.
2. Can the consequences of Israeli military action be managed? If Iran takes it on the chin from Israel, and Iran retains a capability to retaliate, they can wreak havoc on other Gulf states’ oil production and distribution operations. There’s no way we can stop the damage to the economy this will cause.
3. Why would you think diplomacy would work? We’ve been negotiating with Iran in multi-party talks since 2005. In that time, the Iranian position has not changed a whit, and their program has marched forward completely unimpeded (except by covert Israeli actions). Also consider the 15 years of negotiations with North Korea over their nuclear weapons program, and the success it has enjoyed.
4. What makes you think you can get sanctions past China? China is Iran’s #1 trade partner, and in return China is getting lots of cheap oil, and slowly sending its tendrils into the Iranian oil production infrastructure. China has so far shown no inclination to alter its position.
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/nuclear/china-says-pushing-for-diplomatic-solution-on-iran-19848.html
5. Even if you get sanctions past China, will they be strong enough to have the desired effect? If China agrees to sanctions, it will only agree to weak ones which do not interfere with its trade with Iran. This seems to be a likely option, since it allows the other nations to declare diplomatic victory, go home, and ignore the problem for another couple of years while stating “we need to give sanctions a chance to work”. Too bad Iran will have a weapon in as little as 18 months.
6. Even if you do (somehow) get very strong sanctions through, what makes you think they would work? Sudan weathered sanctions amidst Darfur. Saddam Hussein got filthy rich off the black market for his oil during the 12 years of sanctions between 1991 and 2003. Iran has been sanctioned for years with targeted sanctions, and it has barely slowed down their nuclear program. They’re still acquiring weapons and nuclear related materials with relative ease (and distributing them to their proxies in Gaza and Lebanon). North Korea has been under sanctions for years. During the famine of 1995-1998, 2.5 to 3 million North Koreans died of starvation (10% of the North Korean population). Compare this with the Ethiopian famine of 1984-1985 where 1 million people died (less than 3% ). North Korea’s nuclear program continued right through this. The moral of this is that even if you imposed sanctions on Iran that were so strong you killed off 10% of the country, there’s still no reason to believe it would actually stop their nuclear program, based on historical evidence. http://www.iranfocus.com/en/terrorism/italy-arrests-seven-for-smuggling-arms-to-iran-19847.html
This is not to be partisan, but merely to look at this as logically as possible. Iran wants nuclear weapons, and the evidence strongly suggests that options other than force have a very low (close to zero) probability of succeeding.
This next article confirms earlier speculation that we will not see sanctions until this June at the earliest.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100301/usa/iran_nuclear_politics_us_sanctions
Once again, the question this begs is not what will the G5+1 do or how they will react, but how will it affect the other actor sitting on the sidelines who has everything on the line. What message does it send? How will it be received? Odds are, Israel will wait until what it regards as the last possible instant (based on intelligence) to make it’s move. That would push the timeframe out to 18-36 months (at the latest).
Pakistan
Pakistan has been fighting militants more effectively now than at any time since 9/11.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/04/pakistan.militants/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/02/pakistan.taliban.commanders.killed/index.html?iref=allsearch
What’s significant here is that the Pakistani army fought back, didn’t retreat, and inflicted heavy casualties. Will to fight has always been an issue. The bigger one has been the ISI.
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/03/whatever-happened-to-bin-laden/
Some analysts believe that the Pakistani intelligence service (ISI) knows where bin Laden is, and are holding out on us because as long as he’s out there, Pakistan can keep milking the U.S. for military aid and support against India.
In a bit of good news, the Pakistanis locals have evicted al Qaeda from its stronghold on the border. Given the scope of these tunnels, and how much stuff they left behind in their hurry to escape, this is a good thing.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Afghanistan/network-150-al-qaeda-caves-captured-afghan-border/story?id=10000854
1. If you leave in a hurry, you’re probably not moving to a better hiding spot. This means we’ll have better opportunities to catch or kill some of these guys as they scurry for cover.
2. There’s plenty of intelligence to be had here. We’ll find stuff. Don’t think for a moment that the CIA won’t go all CSI on this stuff given an opportunity (what kind of pollen is on the blankets? What sort of DNA can we recover? How old are the cells we recovered? Who do they belong to? What kind of minerals / mud are on the equipment? Did they leave behind documents? Computers? Storage media? Who made the weapons? When? What about fingerprints on the weapons? If we catch someone later, and want to figure out if they’re al Qaeda affiliates, we’ll have the goods in our database.)
The bad news? The locals say the foreigners are fleeing to Yemen and Somalia rather than back across the Pakistan / Afghanistan border.
Terrorism
A noted Islamic scholar produced what is considered the most thoroughly researched Fatwa against suicide attacks to date.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35660866/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Some would argue this is a significant step. However I think it will have a minimal effect. Islamic extremism and violence is probably more a cultural function than a religious one. In fact, I would regard violent Islamic ideology as more of a catalyst than as a cause. It provides a convenient excuse to behave in a way in which you were already inclined. There’s no argument that Turkish Muslims tend to be very different from Arabic ones, or Malaysians, or Pakistanis. There’s a darned good reason why most of the big terrorist acts of the past decade came from a handful of countries, and almost exclusively from one self identified cultural group. (We’ll leave the answer to the reader). Note that the author of this Fatwa does not come from the same cultural background as the majority of suicide bombers.
Israel
A few weeks ago, the center-left Brookings institution ran a war game that simulated what would happen if Israel attacked Iran's nuclear facilities. What it found was that things spun out of control afterwards, and everyone but Iran really suffered in the aftermath.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/02/21/87061/war-game-shows-how-attacking-iran.html
All I can say to this is...all right, all right, we get it. A conventional strike by Israel only makes things worse. A couple of months ago another war game reached similar conclusions. The problem is, none of these think tanks is thinking outside the box.
Israel certainly pays attention to these war games. They certainly have their own. Their intelligence on Iran surpasses our own, frankly (we had no idea Syria was building a nuclear facility until after the Israelis blew it up). So, why on earth would Israel mount a conventional strike if it would only set Iran's nuclear program back a little bit, and might fail entirely? Why would they do what everyone expects them to do? Why would they telegraph their punches? Why would they mount their attacks the same way they attacked Syria and Iraq's facilities? All of these would cede the element of strategic surprise.
What I want to know is why in a room full of PhD's would none of them stop to ask: If Israel believes a conventional strike will not help their situation, sanctions and diplomacy are doomed to fail, and a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable, what will they do instead? If you accept these premises, then the remaining option is something unconventional. Somehow, despite these reasonable assumptions of Israeli thought processes, none of our think tank experts has reached this conclusion, has chosen to war game it, or discus it openly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)