What To Do About Iran?
Iran's Defiance Narrows U.S. Options for Response
It strikes me, as it should anyone watching the events in the Middle East, that the Bush administration has backed the US and the UN into a corner in terms of dealing with Iran. Iran is essentially thumbing its nose at the US because there is a severely limited number of options left open to deal with the threat that Iran presents to the US, our Middle East allies, and the international community.
The UN is essentially powerless and cannot get out of its own way. Essentially, the Bush decision to invade Iraq proved to the entire world that the UN was all but a paper tiger... all growl and no teeth. The IAEA is dependent upon cooperation with the country that is developing nuclear technologies. Without the essential support--absolute support--of the major powers of the world, of which there remains only two (US and China), the United Nations does not have the geopolitical strength or international influence. The Bush administration has all but pulled any teeth the UN might have had at one time. One must wonder if that was not part of the Bush plan all along.
The entire region surrounding Iran is in turmoil and is quite unstable. The Saudis are facing increasing internal pressures, even experiencing their own internal forms of terrorist acts, assassination attempts and a struggle between the traditional and modern views of Islam (as well as fundamentalist versus more liberal views of Islam). Wahabbism is losing its grip of the elite and young within Saudi society, while radical fundamentalism is gripping the uneducated and disenfranchised Saudis.
Bahrain has an internal problem between the elite wealthy, who are predominantly Sunni or Persian Shi'ite, and the largely uneducated, unemployed and poor who are Shi'ite, most of whom have some Persian heritage. Its royal family treats its own laws as rules for others to follow. The entire social structure is Bahrain is dependent upon foreign workers, being that out of almost 600,000 people on 30 or more islands, almost half are foreigners brought in to do domestic work, food service, sanitation tasks or menial labor. The new Amir, HRH Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa (whose father I had the honor of meeting), is in the process of modernizing Bahrain more assertively than his father, but also is a strong proponent of military force and a harsher view toward dissidents, especially those that express their disagreement by blowing up local establishments with makeshift IEDs using propane tanks. The recent opening up of political participation has allowed fundamentalist views to become a major issue of contention within the parliamentary process, but the Amir has a cushion in the process because one of the two houses in the parliament is 100% appointed by him.
Qatar is as equally unstable in terms of its work force and population. Yemen is equally troubled. The UAE has its share of problems as well.
Iran's status is in the news on a regular basis. But Jordan is not receiving enough media attention, and despite its long history of relative stability, there is increasing dissent and counter-establishment activity, including some radical Islamist activity.
Syria is as unstable as it has always been, run more by military influence than civilian oversight, and having a history of training, supporting and funding Islamic terrorist groups ranging from the PLO in its early days to Hamas. Its history of unethical involvement in the civil war in Lebanon is notorious and it is still in a state of de facto war against Israel.
Lebanon, while experiencing a recent resurgence toward its heyday, is now feeling the undercurrents of hate and discontent grow once again, and the evidence is pointing to the fingerprints of Syria once again.
Israel is also very unstable. It is still dependent upon its allies (predominantly the US) to keep itself alive. It continues to act like a "justified terrorist nation," claiming the right to act in an uncivilized manner toward Palestinians and any other nation that might oppose its existence, even through economic and geopolitical processes. The direction toward peace and resolution of the Palestinian issues is all but abandoned. The new elections brought forth a renewed support for hardliners, and retaliation. Although it is an unpopular view, but it is my opinion that Israel creates as many of its own problems as do its enemies. Another unpopular view is that many reasonable people view Israel as having committed terrorist acts with the complete support and involvement of its military and intelligence community. While I support the right of Israel to exist, defend itself, and prevent/intervene in terrorist attacks on its people, I cannot in good conscience support the indiscriminate actions against an entire group of people on the basis that all Palestinians are active terrorists.
Egypt is a hotbed of terrorism, but most of this activity is directed internally. Its government is as harsh and undisciplined in terms of human rights as is Myanmar and China. If it were not for the support of its military, the Egyptian government would be awash in daily assasinations and coups. Fortunately for the rest of the world, there are enough external threats to Egypt coming from Syria, Nigeria, Sudan and other surrounding nations that its military remains strong and committed to the current regime... but the moment a powerful military leader gets an inkling that a coup is needed (and will work), Egypt will experience another military change of government.
Then to the east, beyond Iran, are the three most dangerous states in the world: Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. I say these are the most dangerous states because they are in political, economic and military play. India and Pakistan are always facing each other down and threatening military force... and both are nuclear capable. Afghanistan is the new hotbed of the opium trade, surpassing the production of the Golden Triangle right under the noses of American and British troops. China is pushing for influence with Pakistan, and the military-led government of Pakistan is only strong in the big urban centers. The outskirting, almost inaccessible regions of Pakistan are essentially controlled by Imams and village leaders that are fundmental Islamists, opium-financed warlords, Al-Qaeda asscoiated groups, or other non-governmental powers. The Pakistani government 9or military) has almost no ability to enter the most remote areas of Pakistan's wilderness and frontiers without cooperation from the regional powers.
In the north, just above the entire Middle East, are the various former Soviet and Communist Bloc nations that are in a constant state of flux and turmoil, many of which are so desperate for economic improvement, international influence or mere recognition that they are willing to sell nuclear materials and scientific resources to the highest bidder... not to mention the vast influence of the Russian-styled mafia criminal elements trafficking in drugs, sex slavery, child pornography, weapons and anything that brings money to the leaders of the criminal element.
So what should we do about Iran? Our options are very limited.
It strikes me, as it should anyone watching the events in the Middle East, that the Bush administration has backed the US and the UN into a corner in terms of dealing with Iran. Iran is essentially thumbing its nose at the US because there is a severely limited number of options left open to deal with the threat that Iran presents to the US, our Middle East allies, and the international community.
The UN is essentially powerless and cannot get out of its own way. Essentially, the Bush decision to invade Iraq proved to the entire world that the UN was all but a paper tiger... all growl and no teeth. The IAEA is dependent upon cooperation with the country that is developing nuclear technologies. Without the essential support--absolute support--of the major powers of the world, of which there remains only two (US and China), the United Nations does not have the geopolitical strength or international influence. The Bush administration has all but pulled any teeth the UN might have had at one time. One must wonder if that was not part of the Bush plan all along.
The entire region surrounding Iran is in turmoil and is quite unstable. The Saudis are facing increasing internal pressures, even experiencing their own internal forms of terrorist acts, assassination attempts and a struggle between the traditional and modern views of Islam (as well as fundamentalist versus more liberal views of Islam). Wahabbism is losing its grip of the elite and young within Saudi society, while radical fundamentalism is gripping the uneducated and disenfranchised Saudis.
Bahrain has an internal problem between the elite wealthy, who are predominantly Sunni or Persian Shi'ite, and the largely uneducated, unemployed and poor who are Shi'ite, most of whom have some Persian heritage. Its royal family treats its own laws as rules for others to follow. The entire social structure is Bahrain is dependent upon foreign workers, being that out of almost 600,000 people on 30 or more islands, almost half are foreigners brought in to do domestic work, food service, sanitation tasks or menial labor. The new Amir, HRH Hamad bin Isa Al-Khalifa (whose father I had the honor of meeting), is in the process of modernizing Bahrain more assertively than his father, but also is a strong proponent of military force and a harsher view toward dissidents, especially those that express their disagreement by blowing up local establishments with makeshift IEDs using propane tanks. The recent opening up of political participation has allowed fundamentalist views to become a major issue of contention within the parliamentary process, but the Amir has a cushion in the process because one of the two houses in the parliament is 100% appointed by him.
Qatar is as equally unstable in terms of its work force and population. Yemen is equally troubled. The UAE has its share of problems as well.
Iran's status is in the news on a regular basis. But Jordan is not receiving enough media attention, and despite its long history of relative stability, there is increasing dissent and counter-establishment activity, including some radical Islamist activity.
Syria is as unstable as it has always been, run more by military influence than civilian oversight, and having a history of training, supporting and funding Islamic terrorist groups ranging from the PLO in its early days to Hamas. Its history of unethical involvement in the civil war in Lebanon is notorious and it is still in a state of de facto war against Israel.
Lebanon, while experiencing a recent resurgence toward its heyday, is now feeling the undercurrents of hate and discontent grow once again, and the evidence is pointing to the fingerprints of Syria once again.
Israel is also very unstable. It is still dependent upon its allies (predominantly the US) to keep itself alive. It continues to act like a "justified terrorist nation," claiming the right to act in an uncivilized manner toward Palestinians and any other nation that might oppose its existence, even through economic and geopolitical processes. The direction toward peace and resolution of the Palestinian issues is all but abandoned. The new elections brought forth a renewed support for hardliners, and retaliation. Although it is an unpopular view, but it is my opinion that Israel creates as many of its own problems as do its enemies. Another unpopular view is that many reasonable people view Israel as having committed terrorist acts with the complete support and involvement of its military and intelligence community. While I support the right of Israel to exist, defend itself, and prevent/intervene in terrorist attacks on its people, I cannot in good conscience support the indiscriminate actions against an entire group of people on the basis that all Palestinians are active terrorists.
Egypt is a hotbed of terrorism, but most of this activity is directed internally. Its government is as harsh and undisciplined in terms of human rights as is Myanmar and China. If it were not for the support of its military, the Egyptian government would be awash in daily assasinations and coups. Fortunately for the rest of the world, there are enough external threats to Egypt coming from Syria, Nigeria, Sudan and other surrounding nations that its military remains strong and committed to the current regime... but the moment a powerful military leader gets an inkling that a coup is needed (and will work), Egypt will experience another military change of government.
Then to the east, beyond Iran, are the three most dangerous states in the world: Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. I say these are the most dangerous states because they are in political, economic and military play. India and Pakistan are always facing each other down and threatening military force... and both are nuclear capable. Afghanistan is the new hotbed of the opium trade, surpassing the production of the Golden Triangle right under the noses of American and British troops. China is pushing for influence with Pakistan, and the military-led government of Pakistan is only strong in the big urban centers. The outskirting, almost inaccessible regions of Pakistan are essentially controlled by Imams and village leaders that are fundmental Islamists, opium-financed warlords, Al-Qaeda asscoiated groups, or other non-governmental powers. The Pakistani government 9or military) has almost no ability to enter the most remote areas of Pakistan's wilderness and frontiers without cooperation from the regional powers.
In the north, just above the entire Middle East, are the various former Soviet and Communist Bloc nations that are in a constant state of flux and turmoil, many of which are so desperate for economic improvement, international influence or mere recognition that they are willing to sell nuclear materials and scientific resources to the highest bidder... not to mention the vast influence of the Russian-styled mafia criminal elements trafficking in drugs, sex slavery, child pornography, weapons and anything that brings money to the leaders of the criminal element.
So what should we do about Iran? Our options are very limited.
As Iran takes a step closer to developing nuclear capacity, President Bush finds his options ever more constricted. The Iranians seem unfazed by U.N. statements. The Russians and Chinese won't go along with economic sanctions. And the generals at the Pentagon hate the idea of a military strike.
The White House declared yesterday that "it is time for action" by the U.N. Security Council, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on it to take "strong steps" to force Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment. But even as Europeans, Russians and Chinese expressed disapproval of Iran's latest move, there were no signs of consensus on what to do about it.
The central problem for Bush, according to aides and analysts, is that Iran has proved impervious so far to the diplomatic levers Washington and its partners have been willing to use. Some administration officials have grown increasingly skeptical that a solution can be found, raising the prospect that, like North Korea before it, a second member of the trio of rogue states Bush once dubbed the "axis of evil" may ultimately develop a nuclear bomb over U.S. objections.
Bush is especially frustrated with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has abandoned negotiations with the Europeans and defied international pressure while talking of wiping Israel "off the map." Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, complained during an appearance yesterday in Houston that it is hard to find a diplomatic resolution because Ahmadinejad "is not a rational human being."
That has left Bush with few attractive alternatives. "At this point, your options seem to be not good and scarce," said Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Your other option is living with it . . . and I think that's what will happen."
"Their Plan A is to put incremental pressure on Iran so it will cave," said retired Air Force Col. P.J. Crowley, a National Security Council aide under President Bill Clinton who now works at the liberal Center for American Progress. "And there is no Plan B."
Iran escalated the standoff by announcing that it has enriched uranium in a 164-centrifuge network to 3.5 percent. If true, the achievement would be a milestone but not one that necessarily makes a bomb imminent. Iran has insisted it wants nuclear energy for civilian purposes. Weapons-grade uranium would have to be enriched to at least 80 percent and would need thousands of centrifuges operating in tandem.
Iran reiterated yesterday that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at its facility in Natanz within a year and declared it would eventually expand to 54,000. Making so many centrifuges work together is especially tricky, according to scientists. Acting Assistant Secretary of State Stephen G. Rademaker told reporters in Moscow yesterday that, once built, a 3,000-centrifuge cascade could produce enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb within 271 days. A 50,000-centrifuge cascade, he said, would need 16 days to yield enough fissile material.
Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, headed to Tehran, and his inspectors are expected to report on whether the Iranian claims are true. But the announcement electrified the diplomatic circuit and highlighted the challenge to Bush. British, French and German officials all criticized Iran for "going in precisely the wrong direction," as German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier put it. Russia and China also called the development unwelcome but still resisted a tough U.N. response.
posted by Jim Downey at 9:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home