Nuclear Iran... Again

Iran is playing rope-a-dope with the Europeans again. They recently sort of agreed to an enrichment freeze as the US threatens to submit the issue to the Security Council (BTW, what kind of pathetic threat is that?) It seems to me that the proposed nuclear deal is an exact replay of the Agreed Framework which gave North Korea time to get nuclear weapons. Presuming that a fact-based community would be interested in learning from previous mistakes, how do we design an agreement that isn't just marking time while Iran gets nuclear weapons? What should we do the first time Iran blocks inspections? The second time?

Foreign Dispatches has a good post outlining the problem.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

I know the use of force isn't a popular view around here, but it isn't a view that is 'slippery'.

My answer to your claim that "strong inspection teams" were the answer was that in 2003, strong inspection teams were scouring Iraq.

And the US stopped the inspection teams and went in and invaded anyway.

If this is what you think the Bush administration ought to do with Iran, how do you think the Bush administration should deal with the fact that their credibility in pressing for strong inspection teams has been fatally damaged by their refusal to accept strong inspection teams in Iraq? How can they recover their credibility? In your opinion, can they recover their credibility? (I don't think they can, which is another major reason to wish that there had been a change of administration: but since you wanted the same administration to continue, how do you feel they should deal with the situation they created?)

[radish]

Saudi Arabia. sorry. And now that I think about it I guess there's no point having nukes on the ground around there....

Jes, I believe Sebastian's order of battle and general approach to tactical issues is contained in the phrase "or we have to bomb all the sites." Sebastian, your reputation for specificity is going to suffer if you keep on like this ;-)

[Jesurgislac]

I believe Sebastian's order of battle and general approach to tactical issues is contained in the phrase "or we have to bomb all the sites."

Well, while the invasion of Iraq on the pretext of WMD stockpiles (which even the Bush administration evidently didn't believe >a href="http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1335979">existed) was a fatal injury to US credibility with regard to strong inspections, the mass bombing of suspected nuclear research/weapons sites would kill US credibility completely.

Of course, if it sparked a fullscale war, that wouldn't necessarily matter to us all - or not for very long.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

The Iraq inspections, even at the end were not strong, no-notice inspections--at least not as actually occurring. The Blix report clearly showed that Saddam was not cooperating. The proper remedy for non-cooperation is a matter of dispute. The fact of the non-cooperation is not.

[Don Quijote]

So now that we know your answer Sebastian, when will you be enlisting? I hear the USMC has lots of fresh openings.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Good response Don, I'm clearly willing to send all of my personal friends in the Marines to their deaths just for the fun of it.

[dutchmarbel]

The Iraq inspections, even at the end were not strong, no-notice inspections--at least not as actually occurring. The Blix report clearly showed that Saddam was not cooperating. The proper remedy for non-cooperation is a matter of dispute. The fact of the non-cooperation is not.

Blix' report to UN, March 7th 2003:
"Inspections in Iraq resumed on 27 November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.
Some practical matters, which were not settled by the talks, Dr. ElBaradei and I had with the Iraqi side in Vienna prior to inspections or in resolution 1441 (2002), have been resolved at meetings, which we have had in Baghdad. Initial difficulties raised by the Iraqi side about helicopters and aerial surveillance planes operating in the no-fly zones were overcome. This is not to say that the operation of inspections is free from frictions, but at this juncture we are able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq and to increase aerial surveillance."

[Jesurgislac]

The Iraq inspections, even at the end were not strong, no-notice inspections--at least not as actually occurring.

Or so the pro-war faction claimed. Once again, Sebastian, you are claiming a disputed opinion as if it were indisputable fact.

What is indisputable is (A) that the inspection teams were in Iraq, that they reported no significant problems with accessibility to sites, and that the inspection was ended prematurely by Bush's decision to invade, unsupported by the SC or by the UN or by any broad international support.

What is also indisputable is (B) that, once the inspection post-invasion was completed, it was established that there were no WMD - nothing whatsoever justifying an invasion.

What is also indisputable is (C) that, as al-QaaQaa proved, the Bush administration had no plans whatsoever to deal with the stockpiled WMD that they had claimed, pre-invasion, they knew existed: proving conclusively one of two things.

1. If you still wish to believe that the Bush administration were telling the truth as they saw it, that they sincerely believed there were stockpiled WMD in Iraq, they are incompetent beyond anyone's imagining: if they believed there were stockpiled WMD, they should have made plans to identify, secure, and destroy them, and al-QaaQaa proved they did nothing of the kind.

2. Simpler: we now know they were lying all along. They made no plans to deal with stockpiled WMD that they claimed were there, because they never believed their own story in the first place.

So, given A, B, and C (whether you adhere to C1, they're nightmarishly incompetent, or C2, they're liars), it's impossible, based on these indisputable facts, that anyone outside the group of committed Bush supporters would ever believe anything the Bush administration might claim it knew about Iran, or ever support any action the Bush administration might take to attack Iran.

[Don Quijote]

Good response Don, I'm clearly willing to send all of my personal friends in the Marines to their deaths just for the fun of it.

No, No, No!!!

You should not sent your personal friends into the Marine Corps!

You should lead by example and join up. I am sure that you would make a fine officer.

Many conservatives sound very hawkish, but for some reason I have yet to understand, very few of them seem to be all that eager to join up, but strangely enough don't seem to lose to much sleep over sending other people into the Meat Grinder.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

If you don't know why I don't join the Marines, you haven't been reading long.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

And you are treading dangerously close to an out-of-bounds line. But to give you another chance I'll pretend that you don't understand your own argument.

Are you willing to leave all questions of war and peace exclusively to members or former members of the military?

I don't think you would get your desired results that way do you?

[Don Quijote]

From what I can tell, people who have actually been to war seem to be extremelly reluctant to send other people to war, which is something that can't be said about this administration.

[Don Quijote]

I don't think you would get your desired results that way do you?

And my desired results would be?

[Bernard Yomtov]

OK, Sebastian. Here's my plan.

Write Iran a check for, say, $250 billion, in exchange for which they agree to allow inspection of any site of our choosing, to dismantle those we ask them to, and to submit to ongoing audits of their nuclear programs - designed by people who know more about it than I do - to assure that they are only generating electric power. Add other conditions as you wish.

Obviously, we don't write the check up front, but a payment schedule can be worked out.

This is not a Texas he-man solution, I guess, but it's a lot cheaper than war, and nobody gets killed. Those are pretty big advantages.

[Don Quijote]

As afr as I can tell, we had a fairly similar deal with the NK, unfortunatly we didn't quite hold up our end of the deal.

[Jadegold]

or we B) have to bomb because no sites are open for inspection.

Once more, Sebastian goes into 'kill-mode' without clearly understanding the situation in Iran.

Problem one, we simply don't have good intelligence as to where all the sites are. I'm sure Seb's solution to this small obstacle is to suggest we bomb everything.

Problem two, many of the known sites are in heavily-populated civilian areas. Taking out these sites would require very heavy civilian losses. Seb's likely response--where's the problem?

Problem three, to ensure Iran's nuclear threat has been eliminated, we will have to put boots on the ground. Boots that we don't have. Additionally, Iran will make Iraq look like a picnic; Iran--unlike Iraq--has a functioning professional military. Iran also has a fully functioning civil defense infrastructure and organization. Once more, this plays into Seb's 'let's-bomb-everything' remedy.

Problem four, unlike Iraq, an attack on Iran will be viewed as an attack on Islam. I'd expect a number of ME nations to either actively side with Iran or at least not cooperate with the US.

i

[Jesurgislac]

Jadegold, great summary.

I'd add to this, that Sebastian's post is inspired by - though you'd never know it - a European diplomatic success.

Tehran sealed an agreement with the EU to freeze its nuclear activities: this was a major step forward, and was therefore greeted with contumely by the Bush administration, and - following in lockstep - by Sebastian.

(Granted that there may be difficulties - Iran appears to be trying to process enriched uranium in a hurry before today's deadline (cite) but it's interesting to reflect that Sebastian's post claiming failure was posted a day after the news of a European success, and on the day of a UN success. Bluntly, it looks very much as if Bush supporters can't bear news that a war with Iraq may be made unnecessary by diplomatic means.

[Jesurgislac]

that a war with Iraq may be made unnecessary by diplomatic means.

Duh. ...that a war with Iran may be made unnecessary by diplomatic means.

Of course, the former was true too, a couple of years ago.

[Don Quijote]

Get real, Jesurgislac, we are going to war. There 's only three targets on the table, one is absolutly unrealistic (NK) and even this administration isn't insane enough to start a war with China (we hope).

Iran's the secondary target, they have a functional army & goverment, if they get Nukes they become to dangereous to invade.

Leave us with Syria, if Iran gets Nukes, well there goes poor Syria. Screwed by default!!!

My guess is that the invasion will be set just before or around the congressional elections, so that we can use the war as a bludgeon to beat the Dems and to get the sheeple to forget their economic problems.

[Jesurgislac]

Don: Get real, Jesurgislac, we are going to war.

I don't know. Everything suggests that the Bush administration wants war, and is made angry and upset by any success that may make a shiny new war unnecessary.

The fact is: The US can't now attack any other country in force without first withdrawing from Iraq. If Kerry had done this, of course, Bush supporters would call it "cutting and running": if Bush does it, I don't doubt they'll find some handy excuse. (It may be that enough military will be left behind to staff the permanent bases, and the rest of the country will be abandoned to become a new Afghanistan: that would fit.) But the truth is, we can't predict what the Bush administration will do, only that whatever it is, it will be disastrous. They don't do plans: they do marketing.

[Bernard Yomtov]

if Bush does it, I don't doubt they'll find some handy excuse.

This morning's Boston Globe has an article about proposed troop cutbacks in Iraq.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2004/11/22/hawks_push_deep_cuts_in_forces_in_iraq/