Iran is unlikely to agree to curb its nuclear programme unless the U.S. and its Western allies are prepared to ease tough economic sanctions imposed against the Islamic Republic over the past decade, according to a major new report signed by more than three dozen former top U.S. foreign-policy [...]]]>
Iran is unlikely to agree to curb its nuclear programme unless the U.S. and its Western allies are prepared to ease tough economic sanctions imposed against the Islamic Republic over the past decade, according to a major new report signed by more than three dozen former top U.S. foreign-policy makers, military officers, and independent experts.
While recent sanctions “may well help bring Iran to the negotiating table, it is not clear that these sanctions alone will result in agreements or changes in Iranian policies, much less changes in Iran’s leadership,” the report, “Weighing Benefits and Costs of International Sanctions Against Iran”, concludes.
“If Iran were to signal its willingness to modify its nuclear program and to cooperate in verifying those modifications, Iranian negotiations would expect the United States and its allies, in turn, to offer a plan for easing some of the sanctions,” according to the 86-page report.
But, “(a)bsent a calibrated, positive response from the West, Iran’s leaders would have little incentive to move forward with negotiations,” it stressed, noting that the administration of President Barack Obama should have a plan at the ready that would make clear how and in what sequence Washington might ease sanctions in exchange for Iranian cooperation.
The new report, which is signed by 38 foreign policy luminaries, including three Republican former cabinet secretaries, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, and half a dozen retired Army and Marine Corps generals with substantial Middle East experience, comes at a particularly sensitive moment.
On the one hand, Congress, prodded by the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is moving to enact as part of the 2013 defence bill tough new sanctions against foreign companies and individuals still doing business in several key Iranian economic sectors.
The final bill, which may seek to reduce Obama’s ability to “waive” such sanctions, could also include policy language adopted by the House urging the administration to build up its military presence in the region to make the threat of an attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities more credible.
On the other hand, the administration, which opposes the pending sanctions package and any limitation on the president’s waiver authority, has been meeting with its partners in the P5+1 group -the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany – to forge a common negotiating position in preparation for a new round of talks with Iran that will probably take place next month.
In the clearest statement to date, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week said Washington was also willing to engage Tehran on a bilateral basis in order to gain an accord.
She and other officials have said in the past that Washington is willing to ease sanctions in return for Iran’s cooperation, but the administration has been vague about the timing, suggesting it would consider taking such steps only after Tehran took specific concrete steps.
These include shipping its stockpile of 20-percent enriched uranium out of the country, closing its Fordow enrichment plant, and clearing up long-pending questions by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about Tehran’s possible past research into the military applications of nuclear energy.
“So far, neither the United States nor the UN Security Council has stipulated the precise criteria that Iran must meet to trigger the lifting of sanctions, or the sanctions that would be lifted in exchange for Iran’s actions,” noted the new report, which was also signed by more than a dozen retired top-ranked diplomats, including former U.N. ambassador Thomas Pickering. “There is no action-for-action plan that all parties understand.”
Given the prominence and bipartisanship of the signatories, who also included Michael Hayden, a retired four-star Air Force general who served in top intelligence positions under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and advised Mitt Romney in his unsuccessful election bid against Obama, the new report could well influence both the debate in Congress and within the administration.
The Iran Project’s first report – on the costs and benefits of a possible U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran – received considerable attention here after its release in mid-September.
That report, which concluded that even a massive U.S. assault would set back Tehran’s nuclear programme by only four years at best, highlighted the growing concern in establishment foreign-policy circles about the beating of the war drums by the right-wing government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its supporters here.
Like its predecessor, the latest report, does not advocate a particular policy.
But it notes that the benefits of U.S. sanctions against Iran “have often been taken as a given,” in part because they offer an alternative to military action. The costs of sanctions, on the other hand, have not been “routinely addressed in the public or policymaking debate”.
Moreover, it said, “sanctions alone are not a policy,” and their effectiveness “will depend not only on the sanctions themselves, but also on the negotiating strategy associated with them.”
Assessing the costs, as well as the benefits, of sanctions, it said, should “enhance the quality of debate about the sanctions regime and the role of sanctions in overall U.S. policy toward Iran.”
Among the benefits sanctions have provided, according to the report, have been a slowdown in the expansion of Iran’s nuclear programme; a relative weakening of its conventional military capabilities; growing concerns in the regime about public unhappiness with the economy which “appears to have been significantly weakened” as a result of these measures.
It also cited “some indications of a greater willingness on the part of the Iranian leadership to negotiate seriously” over its nuclear programme, although the report also expressed doubt “that the current severe sanctions regime will significantly affect the decision making of Iran’s leaders – any more than past sanctions did – barring some willingness on the part of sanctioning countries to combine continued pressure with positive signals and decisions on matters of great interest to Iran.”
On the costs side of the ledger, on the other hand, the report cited tensions between the U.S. and Russia, China, India, Turkey, and South Korea, among other countries, which have been pressed to comply with Washington’s increasingly comprehensive sanctions.
It also noted increased influence by hard-line factions, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), over the cash-strapped economy; the political empowerment of those same factions which can depict the sanctions as U.S.-led aggression; and the sanctions’ potential negative humanitarian impact as U.S. and foreign companies and groups that sell or provide food and medicine to Iran find the licensing procedures too burdensome and the banks needed to provide credit for such transactions increasingly unwilling to do so.
Insofar as the sanctions lower the quality of life for the average Iranian, they may also contribute to long-term alienation between the two countries.
In addition, the sanctions are creating “new international patterns of trade” that are resulting in increased market share for Chinese and Indian goods in Iran at the expense of Western products, while the “rapid expansion of unofficial, black-market trade between Iran and Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey is distorting and undermining the economies of those states and the region,” according to the report.
]]>I’m pleased that President Obama is reportedly enlarging his list of possible candidates for senior national-security posts to Republicans, notably former Sen. Chuck Hagel, as reported by Josh Rogin, the Cable Guy, on yesterday. As has been pointed out by more than one commentator over the last few years, Obama’s [...]]]>
I’m pleased that President Obama is reportedly enlarging his list of possible candidates for senior national-security posts to Republicans, notably former Sen. Chuck Hagel, as reported by Josh Rogin, the Cable Guy, on yesterday. As has been pointed out by more than one commentator over the last few years, Obama’s basic foreign-policy views don’t seem all that far from the kind of fundamentally realist views pursued by the administration of President George H.W. Bush, and particularly his two leading advisers, Brent Scowcroft and James Baker — both of whom opposed the Iraq War — not to mention Colin Powell, who served under Bush I as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As I understand it, Obama consults Powell, who will forever regret not standing up to the Cheney-Rumsfeld-neocon cabal, on foreign-policy matters on a not infrequent basis. Moreover, realist Republicans — the bane of neo-conservatives — have always been far more tough-minded about Israel and the distinction between Israeli and U.S. national interests in the Middle East than Democrats. Because Israel and the Middle East are certain to be central to the foreign-policy success or failure of his second term, that kind of tough-mindedness should be especially appealing to Obama. So why Obama would only consider Democrats — and a particularly partisan and polarizing one like Susan Rice — for secretary of state when he has so much on his domestic agenda already has been very puzzling to me. A Republican in tune with Obama’s views could be particularly effective at running interference — especially with Congress — on the foreign-policy front, especially with respect to the Middle East.
Hagel has already been mentioned, but there are other possibilities.
My personal favorite is retiring Indiana Sen. Dick Lugar. As with the Bush I administration veterans, skeptics will immediately cite his age — 80 — as a disqualifying factor, and I understand he does have some minor ambulatory difficulties these days. (Recall, however, that FDR ran the U.S. from a wheelchair for 12 years.) But as is shown by this video of Lugar’s recent acceptance of an award from the Friends Committee on National Legislation — especially after the 15-minute mark when he takes questions — his mind is as sharp as a tack; his knowledge encyclopedic; his access to and interest in foreign leaders impressive; and his concern about the general state of the world, including the have-nots (listen to his discussion about Egypt) seemingly quite genuine.
Described by the New Yorker as “Obama’s favorite Republican,” Lugar defended Obama’s policies during the presidential campaign on Israel, Iran, and China, among other issues, warning back in September that, “We’re really going to have hell to pay,” if the U.S. or Israel carries out an attack against Iran. And given his negotiating skills (his main presentation in that video addresses all the WMD diplomacy he has carried out as follow-through on the 1992 Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Act), his venerable age and breadth of experience, and invariably civil and engaging demeanor, all but the most rabidly right-wing Republican lawmakers are likely to show deference in his presence.
It is true that Lugar has too often followed his party’s leadership; the worst example, of course, was going along with the Iraq invasion (as did Kerry and Clinton, of course), although he did express pretty strong reservations at the time and became one of the first Republicans to break with Bush’s strategy by calling for a quick withdrawal. (Of course, Hagel was far ahead of him on Iraq). He was also a strong supporter of the most pertinent recommendations of the Iraq Study Group which, of course, was c0-chaired by Baker and Lugar’s fellow-Hoosier, former Rep. Lee Hamilton. I remember back in the 80′s when he defied his party and Ronald Reagan by leading the drive to pass the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 and then to override Reagan’s veto. To so flagrantly break with the president was not only politically courageous. It also demonstrated a sensitivity to the aspirations of what was then called the “Third World” that was and remains all-too-rare among Republicans and an understanding that being a foreign-policy “realist” in the late 20th century required factoring popular grassroots movements into the balance-of-power calculations made by governments operating in an international system. His early determination that it made no sense to try to sustain or even reform Marcos dictatorship in the face of the “People Power” movement showed a similar awareness. Moreover, from the early 1980′s, he worked to temper the aggressiveness of Reagan’s Central America policies; in stark contrast to many of his Republican colleagues, his door was always open to human rights, peace, and church groups during the period.
Add to all this Lugar’s consistent support for international treaties and conventions, particularly in the arms control and disarmament field — a major personal priority of Obama’s — as well as his backing for legislation designed to address global warming and climate change, food security, and global health, and Obama would have someone who appears almost entirely in tune with him on just about all of the critical issues he faces in the second term. A highly respected Republican with 36 years in the Senate, most of them on the Foreign Relations Committee — who better to have your back when it comes to dealing with Congress? (An excellent profile of his “legacy” can be found in this National Interest piece by John Shaw.)
There are, of course, other Republicans worth considering. Former Utah Gov. and Obama’s ambassador to China, John Huntsman, certainly falls into the realist camp and would probably make a very effective secretary of state, especially in overseeing the much-ballyhooed “pivot” to Asia. But the fact that he served under Obama, his lack of Congressional ties and experience, as well as his failure to gain any traction for his candidacy in the presidential primary campaign, would likely combine to make him far less persuasive to fellow-Republicans than Lugar. In fact, many Republicans might consider his nomination something of a provocation.
Another Republican worth considering would be former U.S. Trade Representative, former Deputy Secretary of State, and former World Bank President Robert Zoellick, despite his brief association in 1998 with the Project for the New American Century urging the U.S. to adopt regime change in Iraq as its official policy. Aside from that lapse, I have seen virtually no evidence (does anyone have some?) that Zoellick has neo-conservative sympathies. Indeed, neo-cons and aggressive nationalists like John Bolton were pretty upset when Romney appointed Zoellick the head of his transition team. I would wager that Zoellick may have played an important role in persuading Romney to substantially reduce his hawkish rhetoric and stress his agreement with Obama on any number of foreign-policy issues during the third presidential debate. (See Jon Stewart’s hilarious rendition here.)
A protege of Baker during the George H.W. Bush administration, Zoellick is highly, highly competent, as shown by the speed with which he gained the confidence of a World Bank staff demoralized by the petty scandal, seeming cluelessness, and general flakiness of his predecessor, Paul Wolfowitz, who shamelessly rewarded key officials in governments that support the U.S. Iraq invasion with top posts after he took over the Bank. Moreover, Zoellick’s experience at the Bank — dealing with a large multi-national and multi-cultural staff; visiting remote, impoverished regions all over the world; and raising money and other support from emerging economies eager to claim their place at the table — no doubt gave him insights into a far more complex and multi-polar world than most Republicans believe exists. Finally, his deep involvement in international finance and economics almost certainly gave him an appreciation of the limits of U.S. power and the urgency of reducing imperial overstretch of the last couple of decades or more.
Of course, Zoellick is anything but a backslapping pol and, unlike Lugar, Hagel, and Huntsman, has never even run for office. On the contrary, he’s a loner, arrogant, and doesn’t suffer fools gladly, but it may actually be healthy for Republican lawmakers to be on the receiving end of that.
Of course, there are others. On the foreign service professional side, see Robert Wright’s nomination of Deputy Secretary of State William Burns — as well as some of the possible downsides of Kerry — on the Atlantic’s website. If Obama inclines to an older crowd, then diplomat extraordinaire Thomas Pickering, who, among many, many other civic activities, chairs the International Crisis Group, would be fabulous. Pickering, who has served in many key embassies, was most notable for his service as Bush I’s UN ambassador during the Gulf War. He is also a core member of the Iran Project, which, in the eyes of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israel lobby, probably makes him unacceptable. But Pickering, a former ambassador to Israel, did serve with distinction under Republican, as well as Democratic, administrations.
]]>The [...]]]>
The newly released Iran Project report which I’ve summarized below and which has received widespread coverage in multiple prominent mainstream media publications including the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal and Haaertz, can be read in full here.
The accompanying letter and list of endorsing bipartisan, high-level national security advisers — all of whom one of the reports’ presenters, Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering noted today “had their say” about the report before publication — can be found in the first pages.
The signatories include Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard L. Armitage, Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Chuck Hagel, Gen .Anthony C. Zinni, Leslie H. Gelb, Lee H. Hamilton, Ellen Laipson, Adm. William Fallon, Amb. Thomas R. Pickering, Amb. William Luers, and others. According to the National Security Network, ”Other analysts have recently sounded the same alarm” about the lacking public discussion regarding the benefits and costs of militarily attacking Iran and “While the Iran Project report explicitly does not make policy recommendations, CSIS’s Anthony Cordesman concludes in his recent study, “The best way out is successful negotiations.”
]]>Extended military strikes by the United States alone or conducted with Israel could destroy or damage Iran’s most important nuclear sites, but will only temporarily set back Iran’s nuclear program for up to four years, according to a detailed assessment of the costs and benefits of attacking Iran.
Ensuring that [...]]]>
Extended military strikes by the United States alone or conducted with Israel could destroy or damage Iran’s most important nuclear sites, but will only temporarily set back Iran’s nuclear program for up to four years, according to a detailed assessment of the costs and benefits of attacking Iran.
Ensuring that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon would require an “expanded air and sea war over a prolonged period of time, likely several years,” argues the report, which has been authored, signed and endorsed by a bipartisan group of high-profile senior national security advisers, experts and diplomats. Unilateral action by Israel is unlikely to substantially set back Iran’s nuclear program or destroy all of Iran’s nuclear sites, states the paper, which is based on a “wide range of expert opinion”.
If Iran decided to build a nuclear weapon (something which it has yet to do according to all reputable official assessments), it would require up to two years to produce a reliable, deliverable device and would almost certainly be detected before that time:
After deciding to “dash” for a bomb, Iran would need from one to four months to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single nuclear device. Additional time—up to two years, according to conservative estimates—would be required for Iran to build a nuclear warhead that would be reliably deliverable by a missile. Given extensive monitoring and surveillance of Iranian activities, signs of an Iranian decision to build a nuclear weapon would likely be detected, and the U.S. would have at least a month to implement a course of action
A benefit of militarily striking Iran’s nuclear sites would be a disruption of Iranian government control, but the reports authors doubt that regime change, collapse or capitulation would result from lone military action. Seeking these “ambitious” results would require a greater commitment than what the US has given to Iraq and Afghanistan over the past years combined and would include the occupation of all or part of the country, the report said.
The reports’ authors note that military operations seldom led to regime change without ground forces used to occupy the country. The case of Libya suggests that “even with local rebel forces active on the ground, air strikes would need to be sustained for an extended period and supplemented by on the ground support from other nations’ professional militaries in order to produce a change in leadership,” according to the paper.
Would military action against Iran increase or undermine support for the regime among Iran’s population? The former seems more likely, judging by the strong support showed by the Iranian public for their leaders after the Iraqi attack in 1982 and throughout the grueling, eight-year war that followed.
Even if regime collapse could be produced by a prolonged campaign of air attacks combined with covert and cyber attacks, and drone activity (an outcome that we view as unlikely), it is not necessarily the case that Iran or the region would be more stable as a result.
The cost of Iranian retaliation would be “felt over the longer term” by the US and could result in a regional war:
In addition to the financial costs of conducting military attacks against Iran, which would be significant (particularly if the U.S. had to carry out thousands of sorties and if it had to return to the use of force periodically for years to come), there would likely be near-term costs associated with Iranian retaliation, through both direct and surrogate asymmetrical attacks. Serious costs to U.S. interests would also be felt over the longer term, we believe, with problematic consequences for global and regional stability, including economic stability. A dynamic of escalation, action, and counteraction could produce serious unintended consequences that would significantly increase all of these costs and lead, potentially, to all-out regional war.
The paper offers no final conclusions or recommendations. Instead it seeks to supplement the “lack of consensus and clarity in Washington about what the U.S. should aim to achieve through any military action against Iran” by offering an objective assessment of the costs and benefits of attacking Iran and evaluating the capacity of the US to achieve certain objectives and plan an exit strategy.
Despite the absence of recommendations, the paper’s list of the costs of military action against Iran outnumber the benefits; the benefits are listed in two and a half pages while the costs take up over 9 pages. Indeed, the suggestion that the “initiation of preventive military action against Iran, even with limited objectives, could be the beginning of a war entailing all of the uncertainties and unanticipated consequences so familiar to those who have experienced or studied military conflicts,” seems to be a fundamental assessment of the report.
Lobe Log was provided an advance copy of this paper which was drafted by Columbia University’s Austin Long and William Luers, Director of the nonpartisan Iran Project and advised by by Colin Kahl of Georgetown University and contributed to by Thomas R. Pickering, Jim Walsh of MIT, and Stephen Heintz of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. We will post it in full when it is officially released later today.
]]>
*This week’s must-read is “Envisioning a Deal With [...]]]>
*This week’s must-read is “Envisioning a Deal With Iran” by William H. Luers and Thomas R. Pickering, two Cold War diplomatic veterans writing in the New York Times.
Mainstream Media and Pundits:
Clifford D. May in the National Review: Former journalist and spokesman for the Republican National Committee Clifford May is now president of the hawkish Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. This week he applauded the imposition of more crippling sanctions on Iran, which he calls a “weapon” for bringing about regime change. Despite praising the recent waves of strangling measures against the isolated Islamic Republic, May also implied that the U.S. should keep the military option wide open:
But sanctions are no panacea. They should be just one weapon in an arsenal of policies aimed at weakening Iran’s fanatical rulers immediately and dislodging them eventually.
…
Finally, there must be no ambiguity about the fact that, if all else fails, sharper arrows remain in our quiver; no ambiguity about our determination to prevent this regime — which, the evidence clearly shows, works hand in glove with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups — from acquiring nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
There are conflicts, and then there are conflicts. Iran’s rulers need to understand that if they continue to escalate this conflict, sooner or later they will come to the end of the road. And there they will find not just a hive of bumblebees but the jaws of a very angry junkyard dog.
Michael Ledeen in Pajamas Media: Veteran hawk and pundit Michael Ledeen (who was far more prominent during the runup to the Iraq war) continues to push for U.S. sponsored regime change in Iran. This week he downplayed concern about a military conflict by saying that the U.S. and Iran are already at war. He went on to argue that more sanctions against Iran are welcomed but won’t bring about his goal of regime change:
But I don’t know anyone this side of the White House who believes that sanctions, by themselves, will produce what we should want above all: the fall of the Tehran regime that is the core of the war against us. To accomplish that, we need more than sanctions; we need a strategy for regime change.
Ledeen also accused President Obama of being inadequately militaristic about Iran:
But even if all these are guided from Washington and/or Jerusalem, it still does not add up to a war-winning strategy, which requires a clearly stated mission from our maximum leaders. We need a president who will say “Khamenei and Ahmadinejad must go.” He must say it publicly, and he must say it privately to our military, to our diplomats, and to the intelligence community.
Without that commitment, without that mission — and it’s hard to imagine it, isn’t it? — we’ll continue to spin our wheels, mostly playing defense, sometimes enacting new sanctions, sometimes wrecking the mullahs’ centrifuges, forever hoping that the mullahs will make a deal. Until the day when one of those Iranian schemes to kill even more Americans works out, and we actually catch them in the act. Then our leaders will say “we must go to war.”
Think Tanks:
Bipartisan Policy Center: A report from a Washington think tank advises President Obama to make threats of a U.S. or Israeli attack against Iran more credible and launch an “effective surgical strike against Iran’s nuclear program” if punitive measures and aggressive posturing is not successful. The “Bipartisan Policy Center” houses several George W. Bush administration officials who supported the Iraq War and the report’s task force is dominated by Iran hawks, including the report’s staff director, Michael Makovsky.
Past and Present U.S. Officials and Politicians:
James Woolsey in the Jerusalem Post: During an interview at the Herzliya Conference in Israel, former CIA director James Woolsey (now with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies) argues for U.S. airstrikes on Iran. From the Jerusalem Post:
]]>“At some point someone is going to have to decide to use force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I’d argue that those who say we can deal adequately with Iran through deterrence are quite naive.”
…
Woolsey suggested sending approximately five carrier battle groups – each comprising an aircraft carrier and its escort vessels – to the Indian Ocean, accompanied by bomber support, if possible.
Two thoughts at this point are relevant for the future of Iranian negotiations: First, the openness of both sides to “expert-level” talks — such as those between the assistants to EU foreign policy chief Lady Catherine Ashton and the Iranian representative to the talks, Saeed Jalili — is at least an effort to take things from the general and procedural toward the potentially specific. The Iranian side seems to be interested in a step-by-step process that will make obligations reciprocal and presumably equal in some fashion, and that is based on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the latter element a code word that conveys the Iranians want acceptance of their right to enrich uranium, presumably for civil purposes only. Such an agreement could be in accord with the treaty, but it would run counter to the Security Council resolution that seeks a freeze on enrichment in Iran. There are now new openings for progress. Experts could help bridge the gaps. The parties’ willingness to try to do so will be a further positive signal.
The second thought: The current political situation provides some impetus for progress. Given a willingness on both sides to seek agreement, the pressure of sanctions against Iran, and Israeli interest in some kind of a military strike before the US elections, efforts to maximize this opening would constitute a wise and fruitful course of action.
And this is how Pickering ended his recent testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, more words from the wise:
]]>An Iranian friend of mine who has played an important role in Iranian foreign policy over the years once told me that “The historical record shows that every time we have been ready, you have not been, and every time you have been ready, we have not been.” Maybe we can emerge from that position of the past to begin with some small things – that we can find the way to pull the curves mutual of interest together rather than have them continue to bend apart.
*This week’s must-read is “Envisioning a Deal With [...]]]>
*This week’s must-read is “Envisioning a Deal With Iran” by William H. Luers and Thomas R. Pickering, two Cold War diplomatic veterans writing in the New York Times.
Mainstream Media and Pundits:
Clifford D. May in the National Review: Former journalist and spokesman for the Republican National Committee, Clifford May is now president of the hawkish Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. This week he applauded the imposition of more crippling sanctions on Iran, which he calls a “weapon” for bringing about regime change. Despite praising the recent waves of strangling measures against the isolated Islamic Republic, May also implied that the U.S. should keep the military option wide open:
But sanctions are no panacea. They should be just one weapon in an arsenal of policies aimed at weakening Iran’s fanatical rulers immediately and dislodging them eventually.
…
Finally, there must be no ambiguity about the fact that, if all else fails, sharper arrows remain in our quiver; no ambiguity about our determination to prevent this regime — which, the evidence clearly shows, works hand in glove with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups — from acquiring nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.
There are conflicts, and then there are conflicts. Iran’s rulers need to understand that if they continue to escalate this conflict, sooner or later they will come to the end of the road. And there they will find not just a hive of bumblebees but the jaws of a very angry junkyard dog.
Michael Ledeen in Pajamas Media: Veteran hawk and pundit Michael Ledeen (who was far more prominent during the runup to the Iraq war) continues to push for U.S. sponsored regime change in Iran. This week he downplayed concern about a military conflict by saying that the U.S. and Iran are already at war. He went on to argue that more sanctions against Iran are welcomed but won’t bring about his goal of regime change:
But I don’t know anyone this side of the White House who believes that sanctions, by themselves, will produce what we should want above all: the fall of the Tehran regime that is the core of the war against us. To accomplish that, we need more than sanctions; we need a strategy for regime change.
Ledeen also accused President Obama of being inadequately militaristic about Iran:
But even if all these are guided from Washington and/or Jerusalem, it still does not add up to a war-winning strategy, which requires a clearly stated mission from our maximum leaders. We need a president who will say “Khamenei and Ahmadinejad must go.” He must say it publicly, and he must say it privately to our military, to our diplomats, and to the intelligence community.
Without that commitment, without that mission — and it’s hard to imagine it, isn’t it? — we’ll continue to spin our wheels, mostly playing defense, sometimes enacting new sanctions, sometimes wrecking the mullahs’ centrifuges, forever hoping that the mullahs will make a deal. Until the day when one of those Iranian schemes to kill even more Americans works out, and we actually catch them in the act. Then our leaders will say “we must go to war.”
Think Tanks:
Bipartisan Policy Center: A report from a Washington think tank advises President Obama to make threats of a U.S. or Israeli attack against Iran more credible and launch an “effective surgical strike against Iran’s nuclear program” if punitive measures and aggressive posturing is not successful. The “Bipartisan Policy Center” houses several George W. Bush administration officials who supported the Iraq War and the report’s task force is dominated by Iran hawks, including the report’s staff director, Michael Makovsky.
Past and Present U.S. Officials and Politicians:
James Woolsey in the Jerusalem Post: During an interview at the Herzliya Conference in Israel, former CIA director James Woolsey (now with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies) argues for U.S. airstrikes on Iran. From the Jerusalem Post:
]]>“At some point someone is going to have to decide to use force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I’d argue that those who say we can deal adequately with Iran through deterrence are quite naive.”
…
Woolsey suggested sending approximately five carrier battle groups – each comprising an aircraft carrier and its escort vessels – to the Indian Ocean, accompanied by bomber support, if possible.