With the Democratic nomination race nearing its end, it seems an appropriate time to talk about the John McCain and Barack Obama strategy and policy divergence that is emerging as McCain's harping point (because, as he admitted, he "doesn't understand economics" that well).
McCain spoke before AIPAC yesterday. I know, I know, big surprise there, a Republican (or, for that matter, any presidential candidate) speaking before "the Israel Lobby" (to use Walt and Mearsheimer's term). Barack Obama is young, and yes he does lack experience; but McCain is old, and apparently senile too. That said, McCain's assertions that Obama is inexperienced and naive are baseless; a lot can be compensated for with a competent team of foreign policy advisers. It appears to me that McCain is the one who is showing naivete on matters of foreign policy, by continuing to follow neocon dogma. A recent NY Times article laid out what it called "The Battle for John McCain's Soul," with pragmatists (read: realists) such as Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell vying for McCain's ear, against the ideologues such as John Bolton and Paul Wolfowitz. With the line that McCain is taking on Obama's foreign policy, Iran, Iraq, and Israel, it appears that McCain has sold his soul to ideology rather than adhereing to strategy.
Moreover, John McCain is not only not heeding the advice of those who have experience in crafting proven foreign policy and grand strategies, but he is ignoring both history and contemporary academia...again in favor of ideology. In his speech yesterday, he reiterated the his stance that talking with leaders of enemy countries (read: "The Axis of Evil" and those bastard commies in our back yard) would be folly. He paid special attention to Iran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Now this is not to defend Ahmadinejad or his rhetoric, but it must be recognized that what Ahmadinejad says is nothing more than rhetoric. He has no power in policy formulation, that power lies in the hands of the Ayatollah and the Revolutionary Council. Obama has recognized this fact and anyone with even the slightest amount of real knowlege about Iran and Iranian politics knows this.
Also, like almost everyone that I have spoken with lately, invoked Ahmadinejad's speech in 2005 that was supposedly advocating eradicating Israel from the face of the planet. Which has since ignited fears about Iran's possible looming aquisition of the bomb. That speech by Ahmadinejad, however, remains one of the most abhorrent mistranslations of a foreign language. What Ahmadinejad called for was for the regime in Israel to disappear from the pages of history. Ironically, much like the Bush administration is calling for the current Iranian regime to disappear. None of this is to say that Ahmadinejad should be applauded as great man, as evidenced by his denial of the holocaust among other atrocious actions.
Which brings up the next point, how can anyone argue against Iran's possible acquisition of nuclear weapons while continuing to overlook the 200+ bombs that Israel possesses. I mean come on people, it is a simple matter of the security dilemma. Why is the U.S. nuclear security umbrella that has been so graciously accepted by Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Germany, not good enough for Israel? Those four countries are all capable of possessing nuclear weapons in a matter of a couple of years if they so chose, what's more is that they are all surrounded by enemies with nuclear weapons: Taiwan has China (the potential, although improbable, cause of the next world war according to Nye), South Korea faces the threat of North Korea, Japan is in the most precarious position because of historical animosities with North Korea, China and Russia; only Germany appears to be in a situation that does not warrant nuclear weapons for security purposes. Israel, on the other hand, faces no neighbors with nuclear weapons, NONE. Add to that the fact that the US remains a most ardent ally who would deliver aid, even unto dropping a bomb if it came to that, should Israel be attacked. So Israel faces no legitimate nuclear threat in the immediate area, which brings up the point of conventional forces, which may, at times, warrant nuclear weapons for deterrent purposes. Who in the area possesses a conventional military that rivals that of the IDF? No one. Not even all of the states in the area combined have the capability to defeat Israel, proof lies in the 1967 war as well as the fact that no one has attempted to liberate the Palestinians via military force since that war.
None of what I've said is new, but Iran is at the forefront of my mind. As November approaches and with the current administration, especially the hawks therein (lead by Captain Dick), continuing to push for attacks on Iran (even while the true war on terror, Afghanistan, continues to deteriorate and Iran shows only minimal signs of improvement), it appears that Iran will be the focal point of foreign policy debate and may come to dominate campaign debates between Obama and McCain the way that the economy currently does and that Iraq has...up until 3 months ago. My point is this, to attack Iran now would be utter stupidity. We change Presidents in January, Iran changes in March. That is to say, Iran should change Presidents in March, unless, of course, we attack them first; which will simply galvanize public support among the current regime. Iran and the U.S. have much in common in their desires for the Middle East, chief among them the desire for a stable Iraq and the eradication of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. It is time to face up to the reality that Iran is the biggest winner of both of those conflicts and that they are an emerging superpower in the region (a fact that has already prodded Saudi Arabia into being more proactive in the region), as such Iran should be engaged not ostracized, criticized, and threatened.
The prompting for all of this, of course, is the reading that I have been doing lately on the U.S. Government's history of folly in policies towards Iran. A history that begins in 1953, when we stopped democracy from progressing in Iran by overthrowing the prime minister and restoring the Shah to preeminence within the government (note: the Shah was not reinstated, he never left. Rather, he was given supreme authority after Mossadegh's overthrow and the new PM, Zahidi, became nothing more than a symbolic figure). If anything, we owe the Iranian people an apology for that action, an apology that is now 55 years overdue. Scholars such as Barry Rubin have said that it is impossible to draw a direct line from the overthrow of Mossadegh to the Revolution of 1979; but if it is not a causal factor, it is at least a significant contributing factor. I for one, refuse to stand idly by as the current administration (and potentially the next, if McCain is elected) proceeds towards such action once again--regime change. Bernard Lewis (an ironic person for me to be quoting, considering the tone of the above) has stated that Iran, like Iraq prior to the invasion, is characterized by a pro-American people but restrained by an anti-American government. Regime change, however, will not bring out the pro-American sentiments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Dear MysticWanderer,
Hmm . . . I've learned a lot from this blog post . . . now let me get this straight:
Ahmadinejad is not in charge. No. The entity really pulling the strings is the Ayatolla and the Revolutionary Council?
Then you make a statement like: “how can anyone argue against Iran's possible acquisition of nuclear weapons while continuing to overlook the 200+ bombs that Israel possesses.”
Uhh . . . mmm . . . because they would be controlled by the Ayatolla!? . . . truly a scary situation. I actually –do- believe in the separation of Church and State (I know this surprises you) but having the Ayatolla in charge of nukes is not my idea of a good idea ;-)
I really think the issue is non-proliferation. I once took a grad level course in Nuclear Chemistry . . . look, I’ve lost brain cells since then (I got an ‘A’ out of that class) . . . but I remember that the professor warned us that doing Nuclear Chemistry (i.e. not specifically separation of U-235 and U-238 . . . bomb stuff, but more likely nuclear probes for medicine and biology) teaches you humility as a chemist because no matter how careful you are . . . at the end of the day you have contamination on you . . . it spreads . . . insidiously. It does that in the geo-political world too.
To parody a childhood taunt: First comes the bomb, then comes the marriage (you become wedding to your new nuke capability), and then comes the bomb in the baby carriage (a delivery system, like a scud missile, but later a ‘big boomer’ like an MX) ;-)
And it is so, so easy to make a bomb these days if you can steal the right material (like a few disks of separated Plutonium (encased in study baggies of course) in the jacket pocket, and you have the stuff) . . . that proliferation, whether it is containing spent fuel from a reactor, or strongly ‘encouraging’ no new members of the ‘I have a nuclear bomb’ club, is a very good thing (Yes, Martha, ‘it’s a good thing’).
But that picture you paint of an Ayotalla with a nuclear bomb . . . that picture, in my mind, fades to the text of a conference address given by Bruce R. McConkie ( April 1979, ‘Stand Independent above All Other Creatures’):
“It may be, for instance, that nothing except the power of faith and the authority of the priesthood can save individuals and congregations from the atomic holocausts that surely shall be.”
I don’t like that part . . . that ‘surely shall be’ part . . . No, Mystic, we can’t let the Ayatolla have his bombs today . . . or tomorrow . . . or ever. I’m sorry. We just can’t.
:
I'm not saying that Iran should be allowed to acquire an atomic bomb. I don't think that anyone, including the United States, should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. What I put forward with my reference to Israel is that is absolutely absurd to sit and tell the Iranians that they can't have nuclear weapons while their (at least now, since we have done them the tremendous favor of eliminating Saddam AND the Taliban, as well as putting al Qaeda on the run) greatest enemy has what is possibly the third largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. It is a simple matter of a security dilemma. And when PM Olmert comes out and makes explicit threats about attacking Iran and actually does attack Syria and the Ossiak plant in Iraq in the 80s, it should come as little surprise that anyone in such a situation would pursue nuclear weapons. Furthermore (and this is a point on which I will harp throughout this post), what is in place in this situation is nothing more than a double standard--allowing Israel to have nuclear weapons while castigating Iran for even attempting to acquire a peaceful nuclear program...A PROGRAM THAT IS WITHIN THEIR RIGHT!
That said, what this comes down to is a simple matter of hypocrisy. Our own NIE says that Iran stopped their attempts at acquiring a nuclear warhead in 2003, and yet, Bush continues to assert that they are pushing towards a bomb. Did we or did we not sign the NPT? Article 6 of that landmark document enshrines the "inalienable right" that all countries have to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes? Saudi Arabia's Defense Minister just the other day came out and declared that Iran should be allowed to pursue peaceful nuclear technology (a dangerous statement for the Saudi government, considering that the US just signed a nuclear power sharing deal with them).
Furthermore, not to insult yours or anyone else's intelligence, but how much does any American really know about Ayatollah Khameini? He is not Ahmadinejad. Were he of the same mindset as Ahmadinejad, Iran would have a nuke. I will here disagree with your assertion that the acquisition of nuclear weapons is easy. Iran's university's are not even capable of importing standard centrifuges for stem-cell research, because they are "dual use." The discovery of the Khan network in 2003, more or less crippled the nuclear black market (for now at least). Furthermore, stealing weapons grade uranium does not ipso facto lead to acquisition of the bomb. It must then be encased and then put on the head of a missile.
Back to my point of Iran not seeking to acquire the bomb. Most countries, once they make the decision to "go nuclear," acquire a nuclear weapon in roughly a decade. Iran has had the technology since sometime around 1973 (good call on that trade Mr. Nixon) and yet, they have no bomb. The Revolution happened in 1979, and still no bomb. They fought a horribly vicious war with Iraq for nearly a decade...still no bomb. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and tons of enriched uranium as well as actual war heads remain unaccounted for...still no bomb. The Khan network was actively selling nuclear equipment to Iran until 2003...still no bomb. NO COUNTRY seeking a nuclear warhead has ever taken 35 years (the time when they first received technology from the US), or even 20 years (the time of the revolution) to acquire a bomb! The US started the Manhattan Project in 1941 and tested by 1945. Stalin started Russia's program in about 1943, they had a bomb by 1950. (For the others, you'll have to forgive me, for I cannot remember them, but they are all right around 10-12 years from the inception of the program to the first test). We started our program in 1941 and the global nuclear order (including South Africa's "secret" test over the Atlantic) was in place by the mid-70s (with the exception of North Korea).
Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the revolution, once cautioned not only Iran but all Muslims against the danger of acquiring a nuclear weapon. His influence is still pervasive in Iranian politics. On the point of faith alone saving the planet from a nuclear holocaust, if that is true we all better start building nuclear fall out shelters NOW! It is not by faith, but by the shear rationality of governments that we will avert such a catastrophe. And yes, I do consider Iran to have a rational government. Again, not Ahmadinejad, but the Revolutionary Council. Contrary to what anyone may claim, they still desire for their country to survive. As Kenneth Waltz once stated, what states want most is survival.
If non-proliferation is the key, then why are we still developing new nuclear weapons, i.e. bunker busters? In violation of our commitments under the NPT no less. Why are we still testing nuclear weapons? Why have we not signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? Why are we not meeting the benchmarks under START II? Again, all of these actions on the part of the United States contribute to a global security dilemma for all of those countries who either by assumption or by explicit notification (being labeled a member of the
"axis of evil" for example) consider themselves to be vulnerable to the United States.
Also how we (again the United States) make any claims against anyone regarding nuclear technology in any form? We who have contributed technology to the only three countries who have yet to sign onto the NPT; India, Pakistan, and Israel. There is a blatant double standard at play here, one that is perched precariously, staring down into the abyss.
I realize that the logic of the Bush administration that there are good nuclear weapons states and bad nuclear weapons states is truly tantalizing, but it if false...and DANGEROUS! Nuclear weapons are plain bad, regardless of the wielder. Moreover, it is impossible to view any single country's possession of nuclear weapons in an insulary, isolated manner. Rather, the only way that a state's possession of nuclear weapons is viewable, is in terms of the greater world situation regarding the matter of nuclear weapons.
A, B, C, D . . . my rejoinder
A. >>I will here disagree with your assertion that the acquisition of nuclear weapons is easy. Iran's university's are not even capable of importing standard centrifuges for stem-cell research, because they are "dual use." The discovery of the Khan network in 2003, more or less crippled the nuclear black market (for now at least). Furthermore, stealing weapons grade uranium does not ipso facto lead to acquisition of the bomb. It must then be encased and then put on the head of a missile.<<
No missile needed, really. Hardening? Maybe. But see Scientific American, May 2008 issue, the article ‘Re-thinking Nuclear Fuel Re-cycling’. Here’s a quote: "The chief concern about reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is that by producing stores of plutonium, it might allow rogue nations or even terrorist groups to acquire atomic bombs. Because separated plutonium is only mildly radioactive, if a small amount were stolen,
it could be easily handled (above) and carried off surreptitiously. And only a few kilograms are required for a nuclear weapon. Before this danger was fully appreciated, the U.S. shared technology for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel with other countries but ceased doing so after India detonated a nuclear weapon built using some of its separated plutonium. Satellite imagery (below) reveals the crater created by India’s first underground nuclear test in May 1974."
Anyway, I wasn’t referring to weapons grade Uranium, but rather reprocessed Plutonium in my comment.
B. >>On the point of faith alone saving the planet from a nuclear holocaust, if that is true we all better start building nuclear fall out shelters NOW! It is not by faith, but by the shear rationality of governments that we will avert such a catastrophe.<<
Well, I stand by my faith – you have the quote in the previous comment. But ‘shear rationality of governments’? If you don’t want to believe in faith, then I suggest you think on ‘rough men’ and the fear of their wrath. As in:
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf” – George Orwell.
If there is ‘rationality in governments’ perhaps it is there because they see those rough men standing just over the border? I suspect that these ‘rough men’ have already foiled several nuclear plots, with me, unaware, asleep in my bed. God bless them!
>>Contrary to what anyone may claim, they still desire for their country to survive. As Kenneth Waltz once stated, what states want most is survival.<<
Wait, you do then see my ‘rough men’ argument and agree. Ok, I feel better now.
C. >>There is a blatant double standard at play here<<
Mystic, you are my better in many ways. But this particular post is full cries of ‘rights’, and ‘fairness’, and ‘knowing’ of intentions . . . but what I’m interested in is that my children and grandchildren survive – I’m not that interested in Iran surviving – and I can’t see a nuclear-armed Iran contributing to that goal. A nuclear armed Israel I think does make some sense in furthering that goal . . . it’s not something I’ve thought deeply on, but I think it does. India and Pakistan scare me – there is a MAD strategy in miniature. But I don’t think we can do much about these countries . . . ‘the cow is out of the barn’.
D. I have learned a lot from your posts – so please don’t take my comments as hyper-critical, or unfriendly. In some of my comments I am trying to be helpful, in others, I am confused, or surprised, and seeking clarification.
Let's put it this way, any possible nuclear weapon that Iran may come to possess at any time seems very unlikely to be used for offensive strategy. It will rather, most likely, be a nuclear deterrent a la the Cold War. As I've said and will drive this point home, Israel has proven itself capable of egregious offensive attacks. Iran has no chance of fending off an Israeli conventional force attack, thus nuclear weapons would provide a deterrent. (Here of course, I am speaking in hypotheticals because I do not believe that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon...they aren't that dumb.)
Therefore, what is left to do is a reply to comments A,B,and C above.
a)To acquire spent plutonium is not the same thing as having a nuclear weapon. Just because a group (be it a state or non-state actor) acquires the raw material, that does not mean they automatically have a bomb.
The first phase of nuclear weapon design in any country is always fission (it is easier,http://www.nci.org/k-m/makeab.htm). That said, there are two types of fission weapons, gun type and implossion type. Fat man and Big Boy were both gun type, which requires a substantial amount of either Uranium or Plutonium (5 kg minimum). Most bombs today are implossion type, which involves a center core of plutonium (or uranium) surrounded by powerful explosives (from my understanding, more in line with the way a bullet works--primer (explosives) is triggered which in turn ignites the black powder (compression of plutonium). We're not talking about standard grade c-4 as the explosive material in implossion type weapons, but something much more powerful. In turn, both the explosives and the center core must be packed into a compact space, and in just such a way as to compress the core.
B) I won't concede the point of rought men. And how or where does Waltz's statement reaffirm this? It does not; it simply reaffirms that all states seek to survive. It also asserts that these "rough men" are not necessary, rationality plays their role. And, I would assert,these rough men only serve to agitate the situation, not mollify it.
C) You are right that my posts do speak of rights, fairness, and knowledge of intent. But I am an American, raised in the tradition of inalienable rights and equality (fairness). I have simply taken that tradition and extrapolated it beyond the US borders to a global level. As was intended when Kant wrote about it, in Locke's Second Treatise, and when Jefferson plagiarized the latter. I am not so provincial to think that rights and equal standards are only bequeathed to Americans.
That said, I too am concerned about my children (should I have any) and about future American generations, but I also have equal concern for the future of the world and all people in it. Without the world, there is no America. It is utter folly to think that indefinite perpetuation of America and its people will be possible without the same perpetuation of the rest of the peoples of the world.
Furthermore, how does a nuclear armed Israel contribute to anything resembling peace and security? More like loathing, resentment, and fear (which in turn means security dilemma). Well the al Qaeda "cow" is also "out of the barn," should we not try to corral it? The same goes for Israel, India, and Pakistan. The United States does have the power to convince these states to abandon their nuclear programs, we just refuse to utilize it. There is no such thing as nuclear containment as your post insinuates. One nuclear state leads to another, leads to another, and another, and so on.
Well, Mystic, I can see we agree to disagree on most of the points
But I have point out that on the 'making of a nuclear' bomb issues, I think you are misled as to the difficulty of doing so. A good article to read is "Thwarting Nuclear Terrorism' in Scientific American Feb, 2006 issue.
Here's a quote, if you can't get the article:
"The engineering required to build a gun-type atomic bomb is so basic that the physicists who designed “Little Boy” did not perform a nuclear test of the design before deployment—they had no doubt that if the “gun” fired, the weapon would explode. Experts agree, therefore, that a well-funded terrorist group could produce a workable gun-type mechanism."
It’s not that hard once you steal the weapons grade material. You posit that the fact it hasn’t happened by now is the difficulty in making the bomb. Think again.
Post a Comment