Wednesday, April 04, 2007
IRAN HOSTAGES: SITREP AND OPTIONS
So today the headlines seem a little more positive, but I’m not holding my breath we’ll see our kidnapped forces released anytime soon.
Apologies for a lack of posting, the past week has been unexpectedly busy, but so this is going to be a lengthy one.
First point is the question about the kidnapping. Now had those boats been in Iranian waters Iran’s conduct would have been entirely legit. The MoD has also shown to everyone’s apparent satisfaction, where the boats were when they were captured. There has been criticism of the maps the MoD used showing that the boats were not in Iranian waters, because the Iraqi and Iranian governments have never agreed and negotiated the exact borders of their respective territorial waters, and hence those maps are less worth than would at first seem. However, Iran gave one position for the British boats to show they were in Iranian waters, and once the UK pointed out that that position would be well within the maps’ proper area, Iran hastily changed the position at which it claims the sailors and marines were seized. This shows that the Iranian forces were a) accepting of the territorial lines on temporary map, and b) were (now) aware that their capture was indefensible. Just to clarify this, Iran only has a right to conduct such operations in its own waters. So, even if you think UK forces shouldn’t be in Iraq and their presence is illegitimate etc, this has no bearing on the issue, as it only matters if they were in Iranian waters.
Now, you could argue that the border lines are in dispute. Ok. But then why is it indefensible for British forces, acting in line with a UN resolution, searching an Iraq-bound vessel on behest of the Iraqi government, to stray into disputed territory, but it’s apparently just fine for Iran to go into the same disputed territory and seize at gun-point? So, the Iranian regime knew either from the outset or after a day that the holding of the forces and their equipment was criminal, so it is quite right to speak kidnapping and hostages.
In effect this was an act of piracy and aggressive war. Nothing wrong with pointing this out either.
The second issue really is what can we actually do about it?
The EU is Iran’s biggest trading partner and any suggestion that their might be retaliatory sanction would put the heat on the regime. Our forces were operating under a UN mandate so the UN could issue some serious demands. Neither did anything. This demonstrates that in the field of security the UN and the EU are either good for nothing or worse. We can just about forget about them.
Do we have any military options? Well, it would be unreasonable to suggest nuking Iran, and in any case it wouldn’t really secure the release of the hostages . . . Ok, so seriously. An operation to free the captives was only really on the cards while they were being taken to Iran and perhaps while they were in a military base on the coastline. I’m guessing we had no contingency planning or indeed forces for such an operation, and that should be considered in the "lesson learnt" category. I don’t see that we would be able to extract our troops from where they are now due to a lack of intelligence on their whereabouts and the lack of an appropriate force to get them out of what is presumably a Revolutionary Guards compound in Teheran. Obviously we don’t have the forces to threaten much else against Iran proper. The only option I alluded to in the last posting was taking action against Iranian interests in southern Iraq. This has not been done in the past and neither was that build-up opposed by Britain for fear of being provocative. The result of non-action has of course been just that, provocative, for Iran thought it could get away with such an action as another kidnapping. If and when the hostages come free such actions should be considered anyway as punishment for the kidnapping.
So, if there’s not much to do here, perhaps diplomacy can save the day. The problem I see here is that we have little to offer the Iranian regime. It looks like they want confrontation, and the current crops politics is a politics of crisis so they need crises. We can’t really offer any compromise or climb-down our nuclear weapons stance. My only hope is that staying staunch on that issue at the last vote at the UN and after, demonstrated to Iran a sufficient level of British determination. Perhaps that has helped.
I don’t really see many options for us. I suppose we could always hand over some ransom money, or offer something similar, such as placing anti-regime activists on EU terrorism lists, to pick an entirely random possibility. For many reasons we will come to regret any of those moves, but I really don’t have much good advice on this whole sorry saga.
So today the headlines seem a little more positive, but I’m not holding my breath we’ll see our kidnapped forces released anytime soon.
Apologies for a lack of posting, the past week has been unexpectedly busy, but so this is going to be a lengthy one.
First point is the question about the kidnapping. Now had those boats been in Iranian waters Iran’s conduct would have been entirely legit. The MoD has also shown to everyone’s apparent satisfaction, where the boats were when they were captured. There has been criticism of the maps the MoD used showing that the boats were not in Iranian waters, because the Iraqi and Iranian governments have never agreed and negotiated the exact borders of their respective territorial waters, and hence those maps are less worth than would at first seem. However, Iran gave one position for the British boats to show they were in Iranian waters, and once the UK pointed out that that position would be well within the maps’ proper area, Iran hastily changed the position at which it claims the sailors and marines were seized. This shows that the Iranian forces were a) accepting of the territorial lines on temporary map, and b) were (now) aware that their capture was indefensible. Just to clarify this, Iran only has a right to conduct such operations in its own waters. So, even if you think UK forces shouldn’t be in Iraq and their presence is illegitimate etc, this has no bearing on the issue, as it only matters if they were in Iranian waters.
Now, you could argue that the border lines are in dispute. Ok. But then why is it indefensible for British forces, acting in line with a UN resolution, searching an Iraq-bound vessel on behest of the Iraqi government, to stray into disputed territory, but it’s apparently just fine for Iran to go into the same disputed territory and seize at gun-point? So, the Iranian regime knew either from the outset or after a day that the holding of the forces and their equipment was criminal, so it is quite right to speak kidnapping and hostages.
In effect this was an act of piracy and aggressive war. Nothing wrong with pointing this out either.
The second issue really is what can we actually do about it?
The EU is Iran’s biggest trading partner and any suggestion that their might be retaliatory sanction would put the heat on the regime. Our forces were operating under a UN mandate so the UN could issue some serious demands. Neither did anything. This demonstrates that in the field of security the UN and the EU are either good for nothing or worse. We can just about forget about them.
Do we have any military options? Well, it would be unreasonable to suggest nuking Iran, and in any case it wouldn’t really secure the release of the hostages . . . Ok, so seriously. An operation to free the captives was only really on the cards while they were being taken to Iran and perhaps while they were in a military base on the coastline. I’m guessing we had no contingency planning or indeed forces for such an operation, and that should be considered in the "lesson learnt" category. I don’t see that we would be able to extract our troops from where they are now due to a lack of intelligence on their whereabouts and the lack of an appropriate force to get them out of what is presumably a Revolutionary Guards compound in Teheran. Obviously we don’t have the forces to threaten much else against Iran proper. The only option I alluded to in the last posting was taking action against Iranian interests in southern Iraq. This has not been done in the past and neither was that build-up opposed by Britain for fear of being provocative. The result of non-action has of course been just that, provocative, for Iran thought it could get away with such an action as another kidnapping. If and when the hostages come free such actions should be considered anyway as punishment for the kidnapping.
So, if there’s not much to do here, perhaps diplomacy can save the day. The problem I see here is that we have little to offer the Iranian regime. It looks like they want confrontation, and the current crops politics is a politics of crisis so they need crises. We can’t really offer any compromise or climb-down our nuclear weapons stance. My only hope is that staying staunch on that issue at the last vote at the UN and after, demonstrated to Iran a sufficient level of British determination. Perhaps that has helped.
I don’t really see many options for us. I suppose we could always hand over some ransom money, or offer something similar, such as placing anti-regime activists on EU terrorism lists, to pick an entirely random possibility. For many reasons we will come to regret any of those moves, but I really don’t have much good advice on this whole sorry saga.
Friday, March 23, 2007
LATEST IRANIAN KIDNAPPING
The BBC report about Iran seizing 15 of our sailors is not too specific about the background, but I wouldn’t be suprised if this was a reprise of Iran’s previous kidnap of British servicemen. They got away with it last time so I guess they thought they could get away with it again. After British personnel are now officially accepting that Iranian undercover forces are active in southern Iraq, the Iranian government probably thought it would be a good idea to have another little show-down. Back in 2004 British commanders refused US orders to launch cross-border strikes in retaliation, so I wonder what’s going on behind the scenes now. Either way, it’s time we started reciprocating in some way. Earlier this year US forces were authorised to open lethal fire on Iranian agents, and this might be a good idea for us to do likewise. Or perhaps we should threaten such measures if the sailors aren’t released? Either way I think the UK has often been a little too soft towards the Iranian regime. Certainly, if our forces know who and where these Iranian agents are in southern Iraq, I’d suggest some serious raids are in order.
The BBC report about Iran seizing 15 of our sailors is not too specific about the background, but I wouldn’t be suprised if this was a reprise of Iran’s previous kidnap of British servicemen. They got away with it last time so I guess they thought they could get away with it again. After British personnel are now officially accepting that Iranian undercover forces are active in southern Iraq, the Iranian government probably thought it would be a good idea to have another little show-down. Back in 2004 British commanders refused US orders to launch cross-border strikes in retaliation, so I wonder what’s going on behind the scenes now. Either way, it’s time we started reciprocating in some way. Earlier this year US forces were authorised to open lethal fire on Iranian agents, and this might be a good idea for us to do likewise. Or perhaps we should threaten such measures if the sailors aren’t released? Either way I think the UK has often been a little too soft towards the Iranian regime. Certainly, if our forces know who and where these Iranian agents are in southern Iraq, I’d suggest some serious raids are in order.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
TRIDENT RENEWAL: HOW TO USE OUR NUKES
As explained below we cannot reverse nuclear arms already aquired in the countries that have them. So, a realistic policy should firstly work at reducing their numbers, an area in which Britain is leading by example. The next realistic step is to stop further proliferation. The risk of this exists in two broad regions: the Pacific and the broader Mediterranean and greater Middle East.
Let's get the Pacific out of the way, as this is outside Britain's strategic sphere. The consequences of North Korea getting away with its programme and a possible weakening of American leadership could lead to the following chain reaction of nuclear weapons aquirement: South Korea & Japan, Taiwan, Australia and Indonesia.
Let's get the Pacific out of the way, as this is outside Britain's strategic sphere. The consequences of North Korea getting away with its programme and a possible weakening of American leadership could lead to the following chain reaction of nuclear weapons aquirement: South Korea & Japan, Taiwan, Australia and Indonesia.
Looking into our own region, let's have a look at the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran, coupled with a possible drawdown of US-UK regional military policies: Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Turkey as the first in line would go nuclear first. In turn this would pressure and open opportunities for Egypt, Lybia and Greece. Leading on from there Algeria and Syria can also not be discounted entirely. Once this is getting underway, who can say that other European powers, especially Germany will not be tempted as well? Additionally remember the strategic pressure represented by Russia.
This is bad for Britain's security. So, in order to counter this we will have to work on strategic arrangements and security deals that will lift the potential burden of Iranian/Russian nuclear blackmail from these countries. This would require resetting our alliances and making it clear that armed conflict will at some point draw in British military force, which must, and will, ultimately be insured with nuclear weapons.
Such a policy would not be able to reverse nuclear weapons in any of the countries in our strategic neighbourhood (Britain, France, Israel, US, Russia, Iran), but it would prevent the spread of such weapons to other countries.
(See also this article in the JPost by Emanuel Adler on the Israeli case, which makes a good point, similar to mine, and which ties in with this earlier posting).
Labels: defence, EU, France, Germany, global affairs, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Lybia, North Korea, nuclear weapons, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Turkey
TRIDENT RENEWAL: TOWARDS NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Needless to say, it would be nice to be done entirely with such expensive and dangerous weapons, but Britain alone cannot not achieve anything with unilateral moves, except disadvantage the UK’s strategic position.
However, nuclear disarmament can only work if all potential competitors agree to do likewise, and in a simultaneous and verifiable fashion.
Needless to say, it would be nice to be done entirely with such expensive and dangerous weapons, but Britain alone cannot not achieve anything with unilateral moves, except disadvantage the UK’s strategic position.
However, nuclear disarmament can only work if all potential competitors agree to do likewise, and in a simultaneous and verifiable fashion.
Who would that be for Britain/France/EU? And what other factors might drive their nuclear programmes?
Iran: Strategically this is a fairly direct neighbour. Iran claims in addition to us and the French, the US and Israel as concerns. Rivalry of course also with Russia.
Russia: Whilst there may not be much threat of any kind of serious conflict, we cannot know what the future holds, and in addition growing energy dependence on Russia would mean that our nuclear climbdown would shift the balance of power and influence excessively to Russia. So, what drives Russian nuclear arms policy? Its additional strategic neighbours and competitors are Iran, China and the US.
What follows from this? These countries would now have to be considered in a disarmament deal. So, like above:
Israel: To offset its numerical and spatial disadvantage vis a vis its neighbours, and because of Iran's programme, any Israeli disarmament moves are effectively impossible. And who knows who will follow in the region once Iran goes nuclear and the US-UK coalition abandons the region to its own devices: Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the most likely candidates; but more on this later.
China: Obviously the US is the main concern for China and additionally India plays a role, just as North Korea will be of some concern. Additionally a failure to contain North Korea and the weakening of American leadership would lead to more proliferation: most likely Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and maybe Australia.
US: Strategic concerns about Iran, Russia, China and North Korea.
So again: What follows from this? These countries would now have to be considered in a disarmament deal. So, like above:
North Korea: nukes used to extract international aid, strategic concern about the US and China.
India: Rivalry with Pakistan and China.
If we now add in Pakistan (vis a vis India, perhaps Iran), we have all the world's nuclear powers involved. From this we can conclude that the nuclear disarmament of Western Europe will only be possible within a framework that sees total global nuclear disarmament.
Whilst the likelihood of this is fairly small, formulating this as an end goal for British foreign policy to support is nonetheless right.
But before this can come about, Britain is right to keep its nukes, while making sure that the numbers are as small as possible. And on this, the Government for once seems to have got it right.
Iran: Strategically this is a fairly direct neighbour. Iran claims in addition to us and the French, the US and Israel as concerns. Rivalry of course also with Russia.
Russia: Whilst there may not be much threat of any kind of serious conflict, we cannot know what the future holds, and in addition growing energy dependence on Russia would mean that our nuclear climbdown would shift the balance of power and influence excessively to Russia. So, what drives Russian nuclear arms policy? Its additional strategic neighbours and competitors are Iran, China and the US.
What follows from this? These countries would now have to be considered in a disarmament deal. So, like above:
Israel: To offset its numerical and spatial disadvantage vis a vis its neighbours, and because of Iran's programme, any Israeli disarmament moves are effectively impossible. And who knows who will follow in the region once Iran goes nuclear and the US-UK coalition abandons the region to its own devices: Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the most likely candidates; but more on this later.
China: Obviously the US is the main concern for China and additionally India plays a role, just as North Korea will be of some concern. Additionally a failure to contain North Korea and the weakening of American leadership would lead to more proliferation: most likely Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and maybe Australia.
US: Strategic concerns about Iran, Russia, China and North Korea.
So again: What follows from this? These countries would now have to be considered in a disarmament deal. So, like above:
North Korea: nukes used to extract international aid, strategic concern about the US and China.
India: Rivalry with Pakistan and China.
If we now add in Pakistan (vis a vis India, perhaps Iran), we have all the world's nuclear powers involved. From this we can conclude that the nuclear disarmament of Western Europe will only be possible within a framework that sees total global nuclear disarmament.
Whilst the likelihood of this is fairly small, formulating this as an end goal for British foreign policy to support is nonetheless right.
But before this can come about, Britain is right to keep its nukes, while making sure that the numbers are as small as possible. And on this, the Government for once seems to have got it right.
Labels: China, defence, Egypt, EU, France, global affairs, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, nuclear weapons, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey
Monday, April 17, 2006
IRANIAN NUKES: THE TIMETABLE TIGHTENS
A little late behind on this but it must be noted that Iran has taken another step towards nukes by successfull enrichment. What this underlines is that the timetable for coming up with a solution to the conflict is tightening. It also unbderlines that a soft diplomatic way of stopping the process is not really on the cards. Iran has constantly kept negotiating and then breaking off in order to push its programme further along. By this method it has been able to prevent the formation of a wide ranging diplomatic coalition against it. After all, if negotiations seem to work now and then there is little reason to turn to the US and its credible threatening of force. If there is no proper crisis climax point politicians will not feel any real sense of urgency to deal with the problem either. Whatever else they may be, the Iranian regime is definitely no amateur tactician.
It also seems that an Israeli strike is not going to happen right now. The best moment for an attack would have been before a nuclear installation goes critical to prevent fall-out. There could of course be strikes against other targets and there may be planes racing down run-ways in the Negev even as I write this, but I don't really see it happening. It seems more likely that Israel has decided to place its fate in the hand of others. That should be right, but given past experience I hope that Israel doesn't come to regret that decision.
Either way, what this has all clarified is that a nuclear-ready Iran is getting ever closer and the timetable for a solution is becoming tighter. That goes for me too, because to be entirely honest I don't yet know what I would do about the situation. This is very different to Iraq where my choice for regime change was long and well established.
A little late behind on this but it must be noted that Iran has taken another step towards nukes by successfull enrichment. What this underlines is that the timetable for coming up with a solution to the conflict is tightening. It also unbderlines that a soft diplomatic way of stopping the process is not really on the cards. Iran has constantly kept negotiating and then breaking off in order to push its programme further along. By this method it has been able to prevent the formation of a wide ranging diplomatic coalition against it. After all, if negotiations seem to work now and then there is little reason to turn to the US and its credible threatening of force. If there is no proper crisis climax point politicians will not feel any real sense of urgency to deal with the problem either. Whatever else they may be, the Iranian regime is definitely no amateur tactician.
It also seems that an Israeli strike is not going to happen right now. The best moment for an attack would have been before a nuclear installation goes critical to prevent fall-out. There could of course be strikes against other targets and there may be planes racing down run-ways in the Negev even as I write this, but I don't really see it happening. It seems more likely that Israel has decided to place its fate in the hand of others. That should be right, but given past experience I hope that Israel doesn't come to regret that decision.
Either way, what this has all clarified is that a nuclear-ready Iran is getting ever closer and the timetable for a solution is becoming tighter. That goes for me too, because to be entirely honest I don't yet know what I would do about the situation. This is very different to Iraq where my choice for regime change was long and well established.
Labels: Iran, nuclear weapons
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
DEALING WITH IRAN: WHY WE NEED AN ISRAELI SECURITY GUARANTEE
Is it time for an "Osiran" strike? Is the solution to the current crisis about Iran's nuclear weapons programme a repeat of Israel's famed attack on Saddam's Osirak facility, or O'Chirac if you prefer that spelling?
I can see that many people are hoping this is going to happen. In a way it's a dream scenario: Israel does the actual dangerous and dirty work, the Coalition can huff and puff and indignantly protest how Israel has destroyed all its efforts at a peaceful solution etc., and in the end the problem is fixed or at least delayed. Equally the strategic fall-out would only hit Israel in the form of Iranian proxy retaliation via Hizballah and possibly Hamas, so we're in the clear on that one as well. Phew.
On the other hand if Britain and her allies take military steps against Iran there is going to be serious violence in Iraq, the conditions for which are already in place. As Iranian agents have reportedly been observing targets in Western cities, we may well even get some heavy hits on the "home front". Well, better let Israel take the brunt until we can find some magic wand to make the nuclear problem disappear.
One thing is clear however, a military strike by Israel alone will not suffice to end the Iranian programme it can only delay it a bit. Still it is an option Israeli policy makers will be considering now. And the timing is becoming more urgent. As has been pointed out by Richard North and the Wall Street Journal, Iran will soon have a new set of high-tech air defences from Russia (SA-15 Gauntlet, to be precise). These new systems would be good enough to make a single strike by Israel ineffective. That means that if Israel wants a sensible, i.e. non-nuclear option against Iranian nukes, it has until about March to do so, when the Russian systems are up and running. After that the options of dealing with Iran via air strikes will only be open to the US Air Force's stealth bombers, F-117s and B-2s.
The consequence of this situation is that Israel must either act now, or completely place its fate in the hands of the US and the EU-3, not to mention Russia and China. If you were an Israeli what would you be thinking?
So an Israeli strike is well on the table, and there is plenty of rumour about this sloshing around too.
But is this really desirable? I don't think so. There is a real risk that Iranian counter measures would spill over on to non-Israeli targets, including British ones. After all an attack by the demonised "Zionist entity" would be the perfect ideological rallying tool for Iran's current leader. He has something of a pedigree here after all. So, who's to say an Israeli strike couldn't be used as an excuse to recruit for and launch a serious jihadist campaign in the region and beyond. This would clearly hurt our interests, though this is a more speculative outcome.
Another problem I see is that diplomacy may still have some hope in Iran. Perhaps not in changing the ambitions of the current leader, but perhaps by slowing the programme down enough for an internal regime change to occur (or at least some moderation). An Israeli strike would clearly be a further step to full on violent escalation and I don't think we are politically or militarily entirely prepared for that yet. If we ever will be.
From this problem there are two separate courses of remedial action to be taken.
Firstly, there must be a way to stop Russia providing Iran with the Gauntlet missile system.
Secondly, and this is the key point of this posting, we have to find a way to dissuade Israel from attacking. Israel has many a good reason to carry out a strike, if it cannot depend on anyone else for its security. So an obvious step to take now would be for the US and the EU-3 to offer a clear security guarantee to Israel. Such a guarantee would bind all countries security together in this instance and by putting Israel's security into the diplomatic mix openly and comprehensively would remove Israel's need for action.
This would be a logical and necessary step, so it will be eventually taken, when it's too late, as these things always are. Nonetheless, it's simple really, it only requires a bit of political foresight. So, fingers crossed.
Is it time for an "Osiran" strike? Is the solution to the current crisis about Iran's nuclear weapons programme a repeat of Israel's famed attack on Saddam's Osirak facility, or O'Chirac if you prefer that spelling?
I can see that many people are hoping this is going to happen. In a way it's a dream scenario: Israel does the actual dangerous and dirty work, the Coalition can huff and puff and indignantly protest how Israel has destroyed all its efforts at a peaceful solution etc., and in the end the problem is fixed or at least delayed. Equally the strategic fall-out would only hit Israel in the form of Iranian proxy retaliation via Hizballah and possibly Hamas, so we're in the clear on that one as well. Phew.
On the other hand if Britain and her allies take military steps against Iran there is going to be serious violence in Iraq, the conditions for which are already in place. As Iranian agents have reportedly been observing targets in Western cities, we may well even get some heavy hits on the "home front". Well, better let Israel take the brunt until we can find some magic wand to make the nuclear problem disappear.
One thing is clear however, a military strike by Israel alone will not suffice to end the Iranian programme it can only delay it a bit. Still it is an option Israeli policy makers will be considering now. And the timing is becoming more urgent. As has been pointed out by Richard North and the Wall Street Journal, Iran will soon have a new set of high-tech air defences from Russia (SA-15 Gauntlet, to be precise). These new systems would be good enough to make a single strike by Israel ineffective. That means that if Israel wants a sensible, i.e. non-nuclear option against Iranian nukes, it has until about March to do so, when the Russian systems are up and running. After that the options of dealing with Iran via air strikes will only be open to the US Air Force's stealth bombers, F-117s and B-2s.
The consequence of this situation is that Israel must either act now, or completely place its fate in the hands of the US and the EU-3, not to mention Russia and China. If you were an Israeli what would you be thinking?
So an Israeli strike is well on the table, and there is plenty of rumour about this sloshing around too.
But is this really desirable? I don't think so. There is a real risk that Iranian counter measures would spill over on to non-Israeli targets, including British ones. After all an attack by the demonised "Zionist entity" would be the perfect ideological rallying tool for Iran's current leader. He has something of a pedigree here after all. So, who's to say an Israeli strike couldn't be used as an excuse to recruit for and launch a serious jihadist campaign in the region and beyond. This would clearly hurt our interests, though this is a more speculative outcome.
Another problem I see is that diplomacy may still have some hope in Iran. Perhaps not in changing the ambitions of the current leader, but perhaps by slowing the programme down enough for an internal regime change to occur (or at least some moderation). An Israeli strike would clearly be a further step to full on violent escalation and I don't think we are politically or militarily entirely prepared for that yet. If we ever will be.
From this problem there are two separate courses of remedial action to be taken.
Firstly, there must be a way to stop Russia providing Iran with the Gauntlet missile system.
Secondly, and this is the key point of this posting, we have to find a way to dissuade Israel from attacking. Israel has many a good reason to carry out a strike, if it cannot depend on anyone else for its security. So an obvious step to take now would be for the US and the EU-3 to offer a clear security guarantee to Israel. Such a guarantee would bind all countries security together in this instance and by putting Israel's security into the diplomatic mix openly and comprehensively would remove Israel's need for action.
This would be a logical and necessary step, so it will be eventually taken, when it's too late, as these things always are. Nonetheless, it's simple really, it only requires a bit of political foresight. So, fingers crossed.
Labels: defence, EU, global affairs, Iran, Iraq, Israel, nuclear weapons, Russia, USA
Sunday, January 15, 2006
WAR WITH IRAN?
I thought it would be useful to have all relevant postings and links on the conflict with Iran accessible in one place, so here is. Obviously you can disregard the dateline on this as I will be updating this posting regularly.
I thought it would be useful to have all relevant postings and links on the conflict with Iran accessible in one place, so here is. Obviously you can disregard the dateline on this as I will be updating this posting regularly.
March 23, 2007 LATEST IRANIAN KIDNAPPING
April 17, 2006 IRANIAN NUKES: THE TIMETABLE TIGHTENS
January 25, 2006 DEALING WITH IRAN: WHY WE NEED AN ISRAELI SECURITY GUARANTEE
January 13, 2006 ARE WE READY FOR WAR WITH IRAN?
January 09, 2006 A BAD BEGINNING TO THE NEW YEAR
October 27, 2005 WHAT IRANIAN NUKES ARE FOR
August 15, 2005 SCHROEDER AT IT AGAIN
August 15, 2005 DAN PLESCH ON CURRENT IRAN SITUATION
August 13, 2005 WOULD IRANIAN NUKES PERHAPS BE OK?
August 11, 2005 REAL CONFRONTATION WITH IRAN BEGINS TO LOOM
November 30, 2004 IRAN DEAL SUCCESS
August 11, 2004 IRAN'S DEMANDS - THEY'RE JOKING, RIGTH?
August 10, 2004 PROLIFERATION WATCH: STOP IRAN'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMME, OR ELSE
August 09, 2004 PROLIFERATION WATCH: MAJOR FAILURE
July 24, 2004 LET'S BOMB IRA. . . . . , ERR, WHATEVER IT'S CALLED
July 04, 2004 IRAN TROUBLE KEEPS BOILING
June 10, 2004 APOLOGIES FOR IRAN POSTING
June 02, 2004 TAKE DOWN IRAN NOW
March 17, 2004 WHAT'S GOING ON IN IRAN?
August 15, 2005 DAN PLESCH ON CURRENT IRAN SITUATION
August 13, 2005 WOULD IRANIAN NUKES PERHAPS BE OK?
August 11, 2005 REAL CONFRONTATION WITH IRAN BEGINS TO LOOM
November 30, 2004 IRAN DEAL SUCCESS
August 11, 2004 IRAN'S DEMANDS - THEY'RE JOKING, RIGTH?
August 10, 2004 PROLIFERATION WATCH: STOP IRAN'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMME, OR ELSE
August 09, 2004 PROLIFERATION WATCH: MAJOR FAILURE
July 24, 2004 LET'S BOMB IRA. . . . . , ERR, WHATEVER IT'S CALLED
July 04, 2004 IRAN TROUBLE KEEPS BOILING
June 10, 2004 APOLOGIES FOR IRAN POSTING
June 02, 2004 TAKE DOWN IRAN NOW
March 17, 2004 WHAT'S GOING ON IN IRAN?
January 25, 2004 THIS SOUNDS LIKE FUN . . .
November 19, 2003 VAN CREVELD GETS THE NEW MIDDLE-EAST HALF RIGHT AND HALF COMPLETELY WRONG
September 23, 2003 GROWING IRANIAN PROBLEM
November 19, 2003 VAN CREVELD GETS THE NEW MIDDLE-EAST HALF RIGHT AND HALF COMPLETELY WRONG
September 23, 2003 GROWING IRANIAN PROBLEM
Labels: Iran, nuclear weapons
Friday, January 13, 2006
ARE WE READY FOR WAR WITH IRAN?
It seems like the situation is beginning to hot up for real this time. The EU-3 have made it clear that referral to the UN Security Council is now seriously on the table. Whilst in itself that may not be daunting challenge to the current Iranian regime, it does however signal a change in EU attitudes. Additionally, taking the issue to the UN marks the end of the kind of conciliatory diplomacy that the EU has been trying on its for the past 2-3 years. The next phase now will probably be a joint effort with the US at coercive diplomacy. How long that will last is hard to say. The possible end point of such an approach could well be military action. By whom and under what circumstances remains to be seen. An Isreali strike by March is a real possibility now. That may well be bluffing on Israel's part, but that bluffing is certainly aimed at getting others to act. To be clear, diplomacy may well achieve the goal of stopping Iran from getting nukes. But this will only be possible if there is a united diplomatic front against this, and a united Western military commitment to enforce a denial of nuclear weapons to Ahmadinejad's hands.
So, we have to prepare ourselves mentally and practically for war. Only that way can we build up the necessary pressure for diplomacy to work. Which again proves the old saying: si vis pacem, para bellum!
It seems like the situation is beginning to hot up for real this time. The EU-3 have made it clear that referral to the UN Security Council is now seriously on the table. Whilst in itself that may not be daunting challenge to the current Iranian regime, it does however signal a change in EU attitudes. Additionally, taking the issue to the UN marks the end of the kind of conciliatory diplomacy that the EU has been trying on its for the past 2-3 years. The next phase now will probably be a joint effort with the US at coercive diplomacy. How long that will last is hard to say. The possible end point of such an approach could well be military action. By whom and under what circumstances remains to be seen. An Isreali strike by March is a real possibility now. That may well be bluffing on Israel's part, but that bluffing is certainly aimed at getting others to act. To be clear, diplomacy may well achieve the goal of stopping Iran from getting nukes. But this will only be possible if there is a united diplomatic front against this, and a united Western military commitment to enforce a denial of nuclear weapons to Ahmadinejad's hands.
So, we have to prepare ourselves mentally and practically for war. Only that way can we build up the necessary pressure for diplomacy to work. Which again proves the old saying: si vis pacem, para bellum!
Labels: defence, EU, global affairs, Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons, USA
Monday, January 09, 2006
A BAD BEGINNING TO THE NEW YEAR
Whereas most of the UK press seems to be obsessed and “surprised” by the fact that Charles Kennedy may have enjoyed a drink or two more than his thirst required, in other parts of the world actually important things are happening: Iran ready to remove U.N. seals at nuclear sites. Perhaps this should warrant more attention? Just a thought.
Whereas most of the UK press seems to be obsessed and “surprised” by the fact that Charles Kennedy may have enjoyed a drink or two more than his thirst required, in other parts of the world actually important things are happening: Iran ready to remove U.N. seals at nuclear sites. Perhaps this should warrant more attention? Just a thought.
Thursday, October 27, 2005
WHAT IRANIAN NUKES ARE FOR
In case you have never heard of Iran's key foreign policy ambition or you somehow think this is a legitimate regime with a right to sovereignty and the like, I guess today's news should finally bury those notions:
In case you have never heard of Iran's key foreign policy ambition or you somehow think this is a legitimate regime with a right to sovereignty and the like, I guess today's news should finally bury those notions:
There has been widespread condemnation of a call by the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for Israel to be "wiped off the map".
At least it is finally clear now and in the open. Seeing that even Old Europe has been roused to condemnation, the Iranian regime's status as a hostile power should now be undisputable. How to deal with the situation is still an open question, but I might point out that Israel now has the full right to take preventive military measures against Iran. The pressure is growing for Western leaders to get their act together one way or another.
PS: For BBC critics I might point out that it is odd that the headline focuses on the condemnation of Ahmadinejad's comments rather than the comments themselves.
Labels: Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons
Monday, August 15, 2005
BUNDESTAGSWAHL 2005 / GERMAN ELECTION LOG: SCHROEDER AT IT AGAIN
Last time round Schroeder only won the election narrowly because his team could capitalise on anti-American and pacifist sentiments in the German electorate. As I recollected recently the only way he could win now would be a US invasion of Iran. So, I remember when I read of Bush's insistence that no options, including military ones, were off the table in dealing with Iran, I briefly and mischievously though, Bush must want the red-greens to stay in power. Unsurprisingly though Schroeder has grasped at the opportunity:
Last time round Schroeder only won the election narrowly because his team could capitalise on anti-American and pacifist sentiments in the German electorate. As I recollected recently the only way he could win now would be a US invasion of Iran. So, I remember when I read of Bush's insistence that no options, including military ones, were off the table in dealing with Iran, I briefly and mischievously though, Bush must want the red-greens to stay in power. Unsurprisingly though Schroeder has grasped at the opportunity:
German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder on Saturday vehemently rejected the use of military coercion to contain Iran and its alleged uranium enrichment activities.
"Let's leave military options aside, we have already seen that they don't amount to anything," Schröder said during an electoral meeting in the northern city of Hanover.
And the opposition is decidedly and rightly unimpressed:
"Schröder is acting completely irresponsibly for electoral purposes. He's acting as though the problem were in Washington, rather than Tehran even through he knows that isn't so," Wolfgang Schäuble, senior foreign policy expert of the opposition Christian Democrats (CDU) told the daily Die Welt.
. . .
"The chancellor is creating the fatal impression in Tehran that the world community is not united anymore," Schäuble said. "In doing so, he is accepting the consequence that the danger of an Iranian bomb will grow," he said.
Quite so. Given that this crisis is on the front pages at the moment, this could well give the government a boost. In many ways that would definitely be a bad thing. Unlike Iraq under Saddam, the problems with Iran, can possibly be solved diplomatically. Unfortunately, diplomacy also has to include the ability to threaten and use force. By sending mixed messages to Teheran, the regime there knows that it can play outside powers off against each other. It could thereby try to prevent any crack down on its nuclear weapons programme. It is a high risk game of course, because if it goes wrong there will inevitably be war. Schoeder's stance is thus not that of somebody who is "peace-loving" but in fact who is both dangerously opportunistic and naively pacifistic, a combination with potentially catastrophic consequences. By ruling out categorically any coercive measures against the Iranian regime, Schroeder is also obstructing debate in the international community in favour of what he sees as Germany's interests. Who is the unilateralist now then? It is high time Germany gets a new government, and by that I mean one that is lead by somebody else.
Updated (see comments)
Labels: defence, EU, Germany, Iran, USA
DAN PLESCH ON CURRENT IRAN SITUATION
As I have said, my mind remains to be made up in regards to dealing with Iran. Dan Plesch has a piece in the Groan that makes me rethink the possible military options:
As I have said, my mind remains to be made up in regards to dealing with Iran. Dan Plesch has a piece in the Groan that makes me rethink the possible military options:
The conventional wisdom is that, even if diplomacy fails, the US is so bogged down in Iraq that it could not take on Iran. However, this misunderstands the capabilities and intentions of the Bush administration.
America's devastating air power is not committed in Iraq. Just 120 B52, B1 and B2 bombers could hit 5,000 targets in a single mission. Thousands of other warplanes and missiles are available. The army and marines are heavily committed in Iraq, but enough forces could be found to secure coastal oilfields and to conduct raids into Iran.
Now, the problem with that, as Plesch then explains, would be that it could tip Iran into chaos and probably lead to The ability to simply attack a few sites in Iran is not really in doubt anyway. Even Israel could probably pull this off:
While the problems facing air strikes are significant, Israel's military nevertheless believes it has the means to cause serious damage to the Iranian nuclear capability.
Israel's cruise missiles, launched from planes or submarines, give the country a capability that it did not have in 1981 when it attacked the Iraqi reactor with a conventional bombing sortie.
"It's a bit more challenging in Iran but the military option remains a real one," said David Ivri, a retired Israeli air force officer who commanded Operation Opera, the attack on Iraq's reactor.
"After all, the aim would not be to neutralise the Iranian nuclear programme. That would be impossible. But what we could do is delay it considerably.
"That was our aim in Iraq and that is what we achieved - a very long delay.''
The question is however, after the delay, then what? I once advocated preparing for UK-US invasion and occupation of Iran to forestall a possibly-nuclear Israeli strike. As Plesch notes (I don't think he himself means it):
America and Britain must act where the international community has failed, and that their action is the responsible alternative to an Israeli attack
Although Plesch himself turns this option down, everything else he writes seems to suggest that is the right course of action to take. He inadvertently makes a persuasive argument that all the problems that dealing with Iran could bring with it - more attacks on our forces in Iraq, destroying oil supply lines, initiating a vast terrorist campaign and the like - will become worse the longer we wait, so the sooner we strike the better. His proposed way out of this scenario however is the clincher that shows how little use his advice really would be:
The problem on WMD is that Blair and Bush are doing too little, not too much. Why pick on Iran rather than India, Pakistan, Israel or Egypt - not to mention the west's weapons? In the era of Gorbachev and Reagan, political will created treaties that still successfully control many types of WMD. Revived, they would provide the basis for global controls. Iran must not be dealt with in isolation.
That sounds great. No really it does. Chances of that happening: nil. And the end of the day one should accept that the world is as it is. It would be hunky dory if all the big countries on the planet sat down at one table and agreed more or less overnight that abolish wmd. Fantastic stuff. And Plesch sure enough has good arguments on his side. But he ultimately makes the big taditional intellectual's error by failing to understand that changes in the real world do not occur by the right arguments and good ideas alone, but by managing conflicting interests. A very basic point one would have though, but one that Plesch slides right over. And ultimately this transforms his points a rather depressing "we're all going straight to hell and there's nothing we can do about it" doommongering.
Labels: defence, global affairs, Iran, Israel
Saturday, August 13, 2005
WOULD IRANIAN NUKES PERHAPS BE OK?
In the current Speccie Bruce Anderson has a great piece on Iran's nuclear weapons programme. His basic premise is, that Iran cannot be halted in its weapons programme, and we ought to consider accommodating it instead of trying to stop this. He argues that even a changed regime would be so weak internally that it would have to rely on the nukes to strenghten its position. Iran is a potential great power and will want to be recognised as such; nukes also serve this purpose. Anderson agrees, as I pointed out the other day, that military options to halt the programme are realistically non-existent. Therefore only a massive sanctions regime would be on the cards. However, as Anderson points out, such a policy would make Iran a poor, suspicious and internally weak country - that still possessed nuclear weapons. Not a good option as we can see with North Korea.
I have a very open mind about what to do about the Iranian nuclear programme, and I find Anderson's essay very persuasive on the whole. But there are a few points that I can't quite stop nagging about. As Anderson writes:
In the current Speccie Bruce Anderson has a great piece on Iran's nuclear weapons programme. His basic premise is, that Iran cannot be halted in its weapons programme, and we ought to consider accommodating it instead of trying to stop this. He argues that even a changed regime would be so weak internally that it would have to rely on the nukes to strenghten its position. Iran is a potential great power and will want to be recognised as such; nukes also serve this purpose. Anderson agrees, as I pointed out the other day, that military options to halt the programme are realistically non-existent. Therefore only a massive sanctions regime would be on the cards. However, as Anderson points out, such a policy would make Iran a poor, suspicious and internally weak country - that still possessed nuclear weapons. Not a good option as we can see with North Korea.
I have a very open mind about what to do about the Iranian nuclear programme, and I find Anderson's essay very persuasive on the whole. But there are a few points that I can't quite stop nagging about. As Anderson writes:
As an intellectual exercise, try to find a justification which one in 100,000 Iranians might accept for Israel having nuclear weapons, but not Iran.
Well I'm sure there are quite a few more Iranians who would accept that Iran's declared intentions towards Israel would justify an imbalance in military power. Strangely enough though, Bruce Anderson is quite happy with Israel's nukes and thinks the Israelis should definitely hold onto them (was in the Times some while ago, though I can't seem to find the link). So, presumeably Anderson thinks that this is an ok-situation. Well I'll just let that thought rest for a moment. But this does point to a wider problem in the region. How do you halt the regional slide into nuclearisation that would inevitably follow Iran's nukes? I can perhaps see a possibility that you could, generally speaking, defend Israel's Middle Eastern monopoly on nuclear weapons as Anderson himself does. But how, could you then go and say, it is also ok for Iran to have nukes, but not for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and who-knows-who-else? I still think in terms of proliferation security stopping Iran's nuclear weapons programme should be a goal in dealing with Teheran.
The other problem is of course that nukes would make Iran perfectly defended. Undoubtedly, an Iranian government will be nervous about attack when is sees the military forces of the Great Satan in all neighbouring countries bar Armenia (a very short piece of border admittedly, and even Armenia has troops in Iraq). While defence is a legitimate concern and Iran's fears of attack should somehow be met diplomatically, perfect defence also means that Iran has more freedom of manouvre abroad. Given its sponsorship of different terrorist and insurgent organisations, this would be a very negative development for security. Like the Eastern bloc during the Cold War, Iran could provide support for terrorism with impunity.
As I said I have an open mind and the approach that Bruce Anderson has sketched may turn out to be the best, but I'm not quite convinced yet.
The other problem is of course that nukes would make Iran perfectly defended. Undoubtedly, an Iranian government will be nervous about attack when is sees the military forces of the Great Satan in all neighbouring countries bar Armenia (a very short piece of border admittedly, and even Armenia has troops in Iraq). While defence is a legitimate concern and Iran's fears of attack should somehow be met diplomatically, perfect defence also means that Iran has more freedom of manouvre abroad. Given its sponsorship of different terrorist and insurgent organisations, this would be a very negative development for security. Like the Eastern bloc during the Cold War, Iran could provide support for terrorism with impunity.
As I said I have an open mind and the approach that Bruce Anderson has sketched may turn out to be the best, but I'm not quite convinced yet.
Labels: defence, global affairs, Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia, Turkey
Thursday, August 11, 2005
REAL CONFRONTATION WITH IRAN BEGINS TO LOOM
Iran seems to have aborted the negotiation process in regards to its nuclear programme and now on to this:
Unless somebody can come up with some genius new military approach, the only option I can see at the moment is that the West follows down the existing diplomatic track and hopes that more international support for a tough line, might convince the new regime in Iran that it will suffer seriously in economic-technological terms if it doesn’t cooperate.
Still, best option still remains an Iranian revolution that removes the exiting system. Here’s hoping.
Iran seems to have aborted the negotiation process in regards to its nuclear programme and now on to this:
Unsurprisingly Iran denies this of course. However given Iran’s hardliners past behaviour, it would not be surprising if they chose to confront the junior coalition leader first rather than take the US head on; that way hoping to create splits in the alliance and weaken it politically. As an Iran wargame in last November suggested, in the event that Iran felt it could be considered for attack it would probably move in first to prevent such action by massively destabilising Iraq. The wargame was also deeply pessimistic about any military solution to the conflict, conluding that only an all-out war of regime change would suffice. Given the difficulties in Iraq a rather unlikely option, to say the least. I have real doubts that barring any major emergency, there will be any public support for serious action. Which of course is a problem in itself, because as long as the military option can not be put on the negotiating table, all talk about bringing Iran before the UN etc are pretty worthless.Britain formally protested to Iran yesterday over its growing interference in Iraq's internal affairs, citing the smuggling of sophisticated explosives that threaten to send coalition casualties soaring.
The move came after British and American intelligence officials said they uncovered evidence that Iran's Revolutionary Guard was providing deadly "shaped" charges to Iraq's insurgents.
A statement by the Foreign Office said: "Any Iranian link to armed groups in Iraq outside the political process, either through supply of weapons, training or funding are unacceptable and undermine Iran's long-term interest to secure a stable and democratic Iraq."
. . .
The development also raises the possibility that Iran's newly-installed hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has decided to provoke the coalition in response to the huge international pressure he is facing to end Iran's nuclear programme.
Coalition casualties have been rising in recent weeks, in part it is believed because of new and more sophisticated explosives. In one incident last month, three British troops died in a roadside bomb attack in Amarah, north of Basra. In another last week, 14 US marines were killed by one of the new devices near Haditha.
A British intelligence source said there were indications that the devices are "increasingly being designed and built in neighbouring Iran and then transported to Iraq".
American and British officers say the new bombs are similar to those used by Hizbollah fighters against the Israelis in southern Lebanon.
Unless somebody can come up with some genius new military approach, the only option I can see at the moment is that the West follows down the existing diplomatic track and hopes that more international support for a tough line, might convince the new regime in Iran that it will suffer seriously in economic-technological terms if it doesn’t cooperate.
Still, best option still remains an Iranian revolution that removes the exiting system. Here’s hoping.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
IRAN DEAL SUCCESS
Well "success" of sorts:
Well "success" of sorts:
Iran hails UN nuclear 'victory'
A top Iranian official has claimed a "great victory" over the US after the UN said it would not punish Iran's nuclear activities with sanctions.
. . .
According to Mr Rohani, Iran's offer to suspend uranium enrichment would only apply for the duration of talks with the EU.
"We are talking months, not years," the cleric and head of Iran's top security body said.
Officials from the UK, Germany and France are trying to get Iran to renounce its nuclear fuel enrichment programme for good.
. . .
Tehran stepped back from a similar offer to freeze uranium enrichment six months ago, sparking the current round of negotiations over its atomic ambitions.
Three Cheers for Euro-multilateralism it is then! If they do make a deal, I gues Iran could just wait a few months and then break it again. That way this news story can run in an endless loop. What joy. Except it may end of course, one day.
PS: See also here ;)
Labels: global affairs, Iran, nuclear weapons
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
IRAN'S DEMANDS - THEY'RE JOKING, RIGTH?
The thing with the mad mullahs is, you never really know if they're serious or not. The other thing is, you never really know if you should laugh or cry. (A decision rather easy with this, undoubtedly one of my favourite news stories of all time.) But these latest ramblings are a bit much:
The thing with the mad mullahs is, you never really know if they're serious or not. The other thing is, you never really know if you should laugh or cry. (A decision rather easy with this, undoubtedly one of my favourite news stories of all time.) But these latest ramblings are a bit much:
I'm rubbing my eyes. But while we're at it I think a security guarantee against nuclear attack would be a cool idea - for Israel. Just a quick reminder , it's Iran that's threatening to wipe Israel off the map with nukes. That's a threat that Israel has not reciprocated. In fact Israel would have all the right in the world to strike Iran first, and may well do so too.Iran has issued an extraordinary list of demands to Britain and other European countries, telling them to provide advanced nuclear technology, conventional weapons and a security guarantee against nuclear attack by Israel.
Ah, the cool, so very British understatement: "gone down very badly". Really? And there was me thinking what a great idea this really is, a sound basis for constructive diplomacy.Teheran's request, said by British officials to have "gone down very badly", sharply raises the stakes in the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme, which Britain and America believe is aimed at making an atomic bomb.
No surprise I'm afraid, that Iranian position. They're certainly becoming desperate. It's a very logical manoeuvre to change the subject and throw a spanner in the works if you realise you're about to lose in diplomacy. As for that more confrontational strategy, it's well past the time to start thinking about it. But just let me be clear that thinking and acting are not the same. I don't think acting heavily against Iran would currently be a good idea. Perhaps thatThe EU-3 are still debating over how to respond, but British officials said the Iranian letter was "extremely surprising, given the delicate state of process". Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, will have to decide whether to adopt a more confrontational policy.
Labels: Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons
Tuesday, August 10, 2004
PROLIFERATION WATCH: STOP IRAN'S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAMME, OR ELSE
I can neither summarise nor quote from today this comment by Brenda Shaffer in the IHT, it is simply to dense to cut short. Also I have little to addd, except to say she's rigth. Well, the policies are abundantly clear, we can only hope that our leaders get a little more serious about the whole affair.
I can neither summarise nor quote from today this comment by Brenda Shaffer in the IHT, it is simply to dense to cut short. Also I have little to addd, except to say she's rigth. Well, the policies are abundantly clear, we can only hope that our leaders get a little more serious about the whole affair.
Labels: global affairs, Iran, nuclear weapons
