The 6 August issue of the Wall Street Journal contained a disturbing article on Iran by Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. It was disturbing not because Oren presented reasoned evidence that Iran’s leaders have decided to use their uranium enrichment capacity to produce nuclear weapons (he [...]]]>
The 6 August issue of the Wall Street Journal contained a disturbing article on Iran by Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. It was disturbing not because Oren presented reasoned evidence that Iran’s leaders have decided to use their uranium enrichment capacity to produce nuclear weapons (he did no such thing) – but because the article amounted to an unreasoned appeal to the post-9/11 sensitivities of American readers to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iran that would contravene Israel’s international obligations.
Let me try to explain.
The theme of the article is: Iran is the world’s leading terror sponsor without nuclear weapons.With them, it can commit incalculable atrocities.
Is Iran the world’s leading sponsor of terror? Without access to reams of intelligence this is hard to judge. Iran is undoubtedly a sponsor of terror, but bestowing on it the number one spot probably requires making assumptions about Hezbollah and about what constitutes “sponsorship” that are contentious.
Oren alleges that Iran has “supplied 70,000 rockets to terrorist organisations deployed on Israel’s border”. But Israel is one of only six United Nations members (out of 192), the US being another, that classify Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation. Hezbollah’s paramilitary wing is seen as a resistance movement in most Muslim countries. Hezbollah was born in response to the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, which prompted the UN Security Council to express grave concern at the violation of the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Lebanon.
Oren affirms that “Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorists” killed five Israeli tourists in Bulgaria in July, echoing a claim made by Israel’s Prime Minister within half an hour of this outrage occurring. But to date neither the Bulgarian authorities nor, reportedly, the CIA, share Israeli certainty that Iran can reasonably be accused of this barbarous act.
The most dangerous terrorist network of the last decade is generally held to have been Al Qaeda. Iranian support for an Al Qaeda operation in Saudi Arabia has been alleged but not proved. No authoritative source has ever linked Iran to the 9/11 tragedy. Al Qaeda’s leaders are Sunni extremists, Iran’s are Shiite Muslims; the twain meet reluctantly.
So what sounds like a statement of fact – “Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terror” – is in reality a subjective evaluation. Now what of the claim that with nuclear weapons Iran “can commit incalculable atrocities anywhere in the world”?
The first thing to notice is the auxiliary verb: “can”. There are many states (including Israel) that have the capacity to do the most terrible things to other states. Mankind has survived until now, however, because capacity is only half the story: the will to use that capacity for offensive purposes also needs to exist.
Oren tries to cope with that fact by reminding readers of the “genocidal rhetoric” to which Iran’s leaders are prone. What he fails to mention is that this rhetoric may not be a reliable guide to Iranian intentions and that for thirteen years (1979-1992) Israel’s leaders were happy to assume it wasn’t.
In truth, leading Iranians have been threatening Israel for more than 30 years, but have yet to act. Hezbollah’s 1985 manifesto talks of the “final obliteration” of Israel; but Hezbollah has shown no sign of wanting to use its “70,000 rockets” not in self defence but to bring about that obliteration. At any point in the last 30 years Iran could have supplied Hezbollah with radioactive material for use in “dirty bombs” or with infectious pathogens for dispersal among the Israeli population. Yet, there is no indication that Iran has tried to do so.
Let us suppose, however, that Iran somehow contrives to produce a score of nuclear weapons without the UN Security Council acting to avert such a gross violation of Iran’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations. Would that enable Iran to “commit incalculable atrocities anywhere in the world”?
Of course not. Iran does not possess an intercontinental ballistic missile capability. Iran’s leaders, who are “rational actors” in the view of US intelligence and defence experts, know that an Iranian first use of nuclear weapons would invite the annihilation of their goods and chattels in a nuclear counter-strike. Possession of nuclear weapons does not secure immunity from punishment for outrages committed by terrorist proxies. Nuclear forensic science provides a persuasive deterrent against making nuclear weapons available to terrorist proxies.
So the highly emotive claim that the possession of nuclear weapons would enable Iran to commit atrocities wherever it chooses turns out to be without a solid foundation in reason.
Oren’s article is also remarkable for a number of distortions of the truth, to put it politely. Since 1992, Iran’s leaders have not “systematically lied about their nuclear operations”. They have not “blocked International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors from visiting Iran’s nuclear sites”. They have not “rejected all confidence-building measures”. Iran’s centrifuges are not “spinning even faster” today than in the past. And “with each passing day”, the lives of eight million Israelis are not “growing increasingly imperilled”.
Last, Oren suggests that the President of the United States can bestow on Israel a right of self-defence “against any threat” at a time of its choosing. This is not so. Israel’s right of self-defence flows from and is circumscribed by Article 51 of the UN Charter, since Israel is a party to that Charter.
Article 51 recognises a right of self-defence “if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations”. Since the Charter was agreed, UN members have come to accept that the clear imminence of an armed attack might also justify acts of self-defence. But it is unlikely that the UN membership, or the Security Council where responsibility for maintaining and restoring peace and security rests, would regard the acquisition of a uranium enrichment capacity by a neighbouring state, even one suspected of having conducted research into the design of nuclear weapons, as amounting to an imminent armed attack.
However, these observations are incidental to my main points: the claim that Iran is “the world’s leading terror sponsor” is subjective and possibly an exaggeration; and, it is highly questionable whether possession of nuclear weapons would lead Iran to commit “incalculable atrocities”. Iran has been responsible for acts of terror since shortly after the founding of the Islamic Republic, but that is not the reason why most members of the international community object to Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, or why they welcome the continuing absence of evidence proving nuclear weapons production.
I leave readers to form their own conclusions as to why Israel’s ambassador to the United States seeks to appeal to the emotions and not the reason of the American public, and why he finds it necessary to give an inaccurate account of certain facts.
]]>*This week’s must-reads/watch:
- Video: Jim Morin “Bomb Iran” animated cartoon - News:*This week’s must-reads/watch:
- - Video: Jim Morin “Bomb Iran” animated cartoon
- - News: Impact of military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities ‘unclear,’ says U.S. report
- - News: Obama to Clear Way to Tighten Iranian Oil Sanctions
- - News: Israel’s Secret Staging Ground
- - News: Senate condemns Iran’s human rights record
- - News: Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent
- - News: Ahead of Revived Talks, US Wavers: Diplomacy or Sanctions for Iran?
- - News: New Iran talks may focus on higher-grade atom work
- - Opinion: What if Israel bombs Iran?
- - Opinion: Sanctions Make War More Likely
- - Opinion: It Takes Two to Tango (Interview with Iran expert, Gary Sick)
- - Opinion: Reacting to War Drums in the Gulf: A Conversation with James Russell
- - Opinion: The False Debate About Attacking Iran
- - Research Publication: Israel: Possible Military Strike Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities
Emanuele Ottolenghi, The Age: The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) Senior Fellow declares that Iran is more of a “threat” than Iraq was and that “[t]alk of war is neither irresponsible then, nor unfounded”. Ottolenghi makes curious claims to back up what appears to be his justification for an Israeli military strike and contradicts U.S. intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) assessments in the process. He implies, for example, that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon even though both institutions have not presented any evidence to suggest that it has made the decision to do so (the prevalent suspicion is that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability). Ottolenghi also uses U.S. military and intelligence assessments concluding that Iran is a rational actor to argue that if that’s true, Iran wouldn’t excessively respond to an Israeli attack (therefore implying that Israel should attack even though experts acknowledge this could actually speed up any Iranian nuclear weapon drive?) Ottolenghi meanwhile ignores other ways that Iran could defend itself (something all rational actors would do) and the regional and economic ramifications of striking the oil-rich country:
The fact is, if Iran is rational enough that it can be dissuaded, Iran will be rational enough to understand that an excessive response to a military strike will carry devastating consequences for its regime.
Iran must know that a limited response to an Israeli strike, which focuses on Israeli targets alone, is less likely to draw the US into the fight. Iran knows, for example, that efforts to block the Strait of Hormuz would be met with devastating military response by US forces.
In short, if critics of war offer the case for a rational Iran as a reason not to attack, they surely must agree that Iran’s rational response will be discerning – it should retaliate against Israel, but not beyond.
Rudy Giuliani at MEK Paris Conference: The former Republican presidential nominee and New York mayor declares that the widely discredited U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, the Mujahideen-e-khalq (MEK), is the “only way to stop Iran”:
I have a feeling that the only thing that will stop [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] and the only thing that will stop [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad is if they see strength, if they see power, if they see determination, if they see an America that is willing to support the people that want to overthrow the regime of Iran.
Clifford D. May, National Review: The President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) argued in February that sanctions are a “weapon” that can be used against Iran to bring about regime change. This month he explains why crippling sanctions are useful while recommending that prior to renewed nuclear talks Iran needs to be face with a believable threat of U.S. and Israeli force:
So what’s the point? For one, sanctions, and the continuing debate they provoke, serve to remind the “international community” of the threat Iran’s theocrats pose. Second, it’s always useful to weaken one’s enemies, and sanctions — in particular the new sanctions targeting Iran’s central bank and expelling Iran from the SWIFT international electronic banking system — have been enfeebling Iran’s oil-based economy. Finally, should more kinetic measures be used to stop Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, it will be vital for sanctions to be in place — and remain in place — during whatever diplomatic palaver may follow.
…
A new round of diplomacy is scheduled to begin next month in Geneva. For there to be any small chance of success, Iran’s rulers will need to feel pressured and vulnerable — they will need to take seriously the possibility that Americans and Israelis have rocks and are prepared to use them.
H. Con. Res. 115: Lara Friedman of Americans for Peace Now has a summary of a recently proposed resolution by Rep. Buerkle (R-NY) and 67 cosponsors that she playfully refers to as “HAPPY B-DAY ISRAEL/FEEL FREE TO ATTACK IRAN”:
]]>Most notably, the fourth “resolved” clause is an unambiguous Congressional green line – if not explicit encouragement – for an Israeli military attack on Iran, stating that Congress: “…expresses support for Israel’s right to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, and protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time…” [emphasis added].
But now comes Singh, who in his effort to debunk Dempsey’s idea that Iran is a “rational actor,” call on us to “assess how the regime perceives its interests” and concludes:
All indications are that the regime values its own survival above all. This likely fuels its drive to obtain a nuclear weapon, which it may see as a guarantee against external foes.
Of course, this is what most Iran and nuclear experts have been arguing for quite a long time: that Iran’s alleged (but still unconfirmed) interest in acquiring a nuclear weapons capability would be motivated, primarily at least, by defensive considerations, and not because it wants the bomb to attack Israel or any other country.
Moreover, as yet another friend of mine pointed out to the first, this also undermines Netanyahu’s, the Bipartisan Policy Committee’s and AIPAC’s main argument that we need to make our threats to use military force ever more credible in order to scare Iran into abandoning their presumed quest (and all enrichment activities, too). But if Iran’s motive for pursuing a nuclear weapon is defensive, how then does threatening it convince its leadership that they don’t need increased defensive capabilities. Indeed, the greater the threat, the more the regime becomes convinced it needs the bomb in order to deter an attack.
This argument, of course, is not new. Most U.S. intelligence officials and, more recently, the military brass have been arguing that an actual attack by the U.S. or Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities would serve only to make Iran more determined to build a bomb, just as Israel’s attack on the Osiraq reactor in Iraq resulted in an acceleration of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons program, as was discovered by astonished UN inspectors after the first Gulf War. And, as pointed out repeatedly by both former CentCom chief, Adm. William “Fox” Fallon and the recently retired Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. James Cartwright, in their appearance Thursday at the Center for Security and International Studies, the Iranians have clearly mastered the fuel cycle and can always reconstruct it.
Remember, also, that none other than Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak suggested that he, too believed Iran was a rational actor, in that if he were Iranian, he would “probably” want a nuclear weapon, too. And, as he told Charlie Rose last November, such a weapon wouldn’t even necessarily be targeted on Israel.
They’re looking around and seeing that India is nuclear, that the Chinese are nuclear, that Pakistan is nuclear, even small South Korea is – not to mention the Russians,” he said. “Saddam tried it, Bashar al-Assad tried, Qaddafi tried it, Israeli allegedly has it.
Of course, despite his implicit acknowledgment that Iran would be interested in acquiring a nuclear weapon for defensive purposes, he still insisted in the same interview that it must be stopped in order to prevent a regional arms race. But it was still quite an admission for a senior member of a cabinet whose prime minister has repeatedly insisted that Iran’s aims and those of Adolf Hitler are similar, if not the same.
]]>A senior Israeli official told Haaretz that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak voiced their displeasure about Dempsey’s remarks to the US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon while he was in Israel last week:
“We made it clear to Donilon that all those statements and briefings only served the Iranians,” a senior Israeli official said. “The Iranians see there’s controversy between the United States and Israel, and that the Americans object to a military act. That reduces the pressure on them.”
Today on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe“ Richard N. Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations said Dempsey made a “mistake” by calling Iran “rational”:
To call Iran a rational actor is code talk. Let me just make it clear, if you call them rational, that means that detterence works and that means that you’re willing to live with an Iran that has nuclear weapons.
After meeting with Netanyahu, Republican Sentaor John McCain also said during a press conference in Jerusalem that he found it “hard” to see Iranian behavior as “rational”. McCain added that there should be “no daylight” between US and Israeli assessments of the “threat” posed by Iran and emphasized that it is “unacceptable for the Iranian regime to develop a nuclear weapons capability.”
Dempsey’s admission to Zakaria that an Israeli strike on Iran at this time would not be “prudent” was echoed this week by British Foreign Secretary William Hague who said it would not be a “wise thing”. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov also argued on Wednesday that any military attack on Iran would be “catastrophic for the region and for the whole system of international relations.”
On Wednesday, Haass and Michael Levi declared in the Wall Street Journal that an alternative to a “a classic preventive attack” on Iran are more negotiations which are nevertheless “unlikely to resolve the problem for all time”. The authors recommend that if Iran agrees to increased monitoring mechanisms and limits on its nuclear program, the most recent round of sanctions that have been imposed on it should be scaled back. Haass characterized a reduction of some sanctions as Iran’s “honey” on the MSNBC show.
Haass and Levi’s strategy outline concludes by stating that before the option of war is embraced “it is important to demonstrate—to domestic and world opinion alike—that a reasonable policy was explored.” They argue that if war results the “political, economic, military and human responsibility for any conflict should be with Iran.”
]]>According to a Bloomberg Businessweek report, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, made the following statements about Iran during an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria:
- “It’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran,” Dempsey said in [...]]]>
According to a Bloomberg Businessweek report, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, made the following statements about Iran during an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria:
- “It’s not prudent at this point to decide to attack Iran,” Dempsey said in an interview with CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” scheduled to be broadcast today. The U.S. government is confident the Israelis “understand our concerns,” he said, according to an e-mailed transcript.
- “A strike at this time would be destabilizing and wouldn’t achieve their long-term objectives,” Dempsey said of the Israelis. “I wouldn’t suggest, sitting here today, that we’ve persuaded them that our view is the correct view and that they are acting in an ill-advised fashion.”
- “We are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor,” Dempsey said. “We also know, or we believe we know, that the Iranian regime has not decided” to make a nuclear weapon, he said.
Despite considerable criticism from pro-Israel commentators about his stance on Iran, Zakaria also spoke out again today against preemptive war with the Islamic Republic while comparing Israel’s Iran concerns with U.S. anxiety about the Soviet Union during the Cold War:
Israeli officials explain that we Americans cannot understand their fears, that Iran is an existential threat to them. But in fact we can understand because we have gone through a very similar experience ourselves. After World War II, as the Soviet Union approached a nuclear capability, the United States was seized by a panic that lasted for years.Everything that Israel says about Iran now, we said about the Soviet Union.
…
The efforts to delay and disrupt Iran’s nuclear program are working. But even if one day Tehran manages to build a few crude bombs, a policy of robust containment and deterrence is better to contemplate than a preemptive war.
]]>