Intel Update for 31 March 2010

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)