To: IRI Foreign Minister Ali Akhbar Salehi
From: Makhzan al-Pand, FM Research and PR Dept.
Subject: As Requested: Draft Response to WikiLeaks Revelations of Stratfor E-mails
Respectfully submitted for your consideration at the highest level of confidentiality:
The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran formally acknowledges and confirms [...]]]>
To: IRI Foreign Minister Ali Akhbar Salehi
From: Makhzan al-Pand, FM Research and PR Dept.
Subject: As Requested: Draft Response to WikiLeaks Revelations of Stratfor E-mails
Respectfully submitted for your consideration at the highest level of confidentiality:
The government of the Islamic Republic of Iran formally acknowledges and confirms the claim that the Zionist Usurper Regime That Occupies Jerusalem (ZURTOJ, otherwise known as Israel) has utterly destroyed the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
The Stuxnet and Duqu computer viruses, the magnetic bombs that martyred three Iranian nuclear scientists, carried out in cooperation with the terrorists of the Mojahedin-e Khalq, the explosions at Iranian military bases, and the latest revelations that Israeli commandos, aided by Kurdish fighters, have destroyed Iran’s nuclear facilities and its infrastructure. We can no longer hide the fact that Iran does not have a viable nuclear weapons program.
ZURTOJ has eradicated the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear capability and nothing remains of it. Zionist spies have corrupted or deleted every computer file in the Islamic Republic, shredding and burning every sheet of paper with even a shred of dual-use knowledge that might be used in the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. The Mossad’s super-sensitive mind control software have infiltrated even the brains of our researchers, from graduate students to our technical experts at the highest level, eradicating any recollection of the principles of nuclear fission and fusion.
The Islamic Republic of Iran openly admits to the world that the real reason for its reluctance to disclose the location and contents of our most sensitive and top secret nuclear weapons development facilities is because they do not exist.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has declared many times that it has no nuclear weapons program. In light of the most recent WikiLeaks revelations, the international community may now accept this fact. We fully acknowledge the enormous contribution of ZURTOJ to world peace by eliminating the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear weapons program without dropping a single US supplied GBU-28 on any of our beautiful cities. ZURTOJ has the credibility, and therefore is welcome to take the credit, for assuring the the world that there is no Iranian nuclear weapons program in existence today.
We realize and sincerely regret the many inconveniences the disclosure of the disappearance of our nuclear weapons program may cause to the international community. US President Barack Obama and the Zionist regime’s spokesman, Benjamin Netanyahu, will have to find something other than Iran’s nuclear program to top the agenda of their upcoming talks. AIPAC will need to find experts on something besides “the Iranian threat” as a major theme for its annual policy conference next week. Republican contenders for the presidential nomination will no longer be able to rely on the slogan “bomb Iran” to demonstrate their deep understanding of the dynamics of global diplomacy.
Since the Islamic Republic of Iran has no nuclear weapons program, it anticipates the immediate lifting of all sanctions and the revocation of the planned boycott of Iranian oil. Although America presently is not a customer of Iran’s oil industry, the lifting of the sanctions and the embargo should result in a significant drop in the price of Brent crude futures in the global market, and avert a global oil crisis. Consumers can expect this to sharply reduce the price of gasoline at the pump in the US.
Iran continues to be in the forefront of supporters of a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (MENWFZ) and expresses the hope that the latest WikiLeaks disclosures will prove helpful in securing its establishment, with full ZURTOJ participation.
]]>Friedman writes (my emphasis):
The most obvious justification would be to claim that Iran is about to construct a nuclear device. Whether or not this is true would be immaterial. First, no one would be in a position to challenge the claim, and, second, Obama’s credibility in making the assertion would be much greater than George W. Bush’s, given that Obama does not have the 2003 weapons-of-mass-destruction debacle to deal with and has the advantage of not having made such a claim before. Coming from Obama, the claim would confirm the views of the Republicans, while the Democrats would be hard-pressed to challenge him.
And saying that Iran has a nuclear weapons program is a rather subjective statement, writes Friedman.
Defining what it means to almost possess nuclear weapons is nearly a metaphysical discussion. It requires merely a shift in definitions and assumptions. This is a cynical scenario, but it can be aligned with reasonable concerns.
Friedman, whose article is indeed very cynical, points to previous STRATFOR research which indicates that destroying Iran’s nuclear capability may require an extended air campaign, the use of special operations units on the ground, military action against Iran’s naval forces, and the destruction of the Iranian air force and air defenses. When all that is completed, “This would not solve the problem of the rest of Iran’s conventional forces, which would represent a threat to the region, so these forces would have to be attacked and reduced as well.”
Potential downsides of a such a campaign could include:
Iran could launch a terrorist campaign and attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, sending the global economy into a deep recession on soaring oil prices. It could also create a civil war in Iraq. U.S. intelligence could have missed the fact that the Iranians already have a deliverable nuclear weapon. All of these are possible risks, and, according to STRATFOR’s thinking, the risks outweigh the rewards. After all, the best laid military plan can end in a fiasco.
While Friedman endorses a “Nixon to China” rapprochement with Iran, he is quick to admit Obama lacks the ideological credentials to undertake such a dramatic shift in policy. Instead, Friedman, predicts Obama will be under increased pressure to attack after next week’s elections.
Friedman concludes that Obama must choose between attacking the Republicans head-on for blocking his domestic policy initiatives or look for success in the foreign policy arena.
He writes:
The only obvious way to achieve success that would have a positive effect on the U.S. strategic position is to attack Iran. Such an attack would have substantial advantages and very real dangers. It could change the dynamics of the Middle East and it could be a military failure.
While Friedman’s rather terrifying description of Obama deciding to attack Iran because it’s the only area of bipartisan agreement seems outlandish, it serves the purpose of illuminating the pressures that Obama and fellow Democrats will be under after the election. Perhaps what stands out most in Friedman’s analysis is the acknowledgment that a successful military strike on Iran’s nuclear program would require far more than the air-strikes discussed by Israeli and American hawks (see Jeffrey Goldberg‘s recent article, The Point of No Return and Reuel Marc Gerecht‘s article, Should Israel Bomb Iran?.). Instead, this will be a conflict that will require significant downside risk and a sustained military commitment to removing Iran’s–loosely defined–nuclear capabilities.
With options like the ones presented by Friedman, the potential downsides of containment and deterrence (see recent blog posts on containment and deterrance here and here) sound increasingly acceptable.
]]>