WarSclerotic

by Stephen Brown, FrontPAge Magazine

The decade-long attempt to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons may have entered the final round on Sunday when Iran announced to the world it intended to build ten new uranium enrichment sites. “This is really a statement of defiance,” a former senior Israeli atomic official told The Wall Street Journal, “telling the world we are going to go ahead with our nuclear program.”

The Iranian government’s statement came only two days after the world’s major powers condemned Iran’s nuclear program, which, despite Iranian denials, is believed to be producing nuclear weapons. China and Russia joined the United States, France, Britain and Germany to support an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution ordering Iran to stop construction on the uranium enrichment plant near Qom, a secret facility whose existence President Obama revealed last September.

Due to the international criticism, Iranians are now threatening to pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and reduce cooperation with the IAEA, the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog. North Korea is the only other country ever to have pulled out of the treaty.

According to news reports, the Iranian decision to thumb their nose at the U.N. and world opinion and construct new nuclear fuel refinement facilities was made Sunday evening at a cabinet meeting chaired by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad. The Iranians will start work on five of the new sites within two months and at an unspecified future time on the remaining five.

It is believed the reason for the extra facilities is to allow Iran to build more nuclear bombs. One military analyst says U.N. weapons inspectors and the U.S. Department of Defense are of the opinion Iran currently has enough enriched fuel for one nuclear weapon. Iran would like to have several more in order to present itself as a “credible threat.”

The Iranian announcement signals a defeat for President Obama’s ‘soft’ approach towards the Islamic Republic’s leadership. In an interview with Dubai-based Al-Arabiya satellite television network last January, Obama said Iran’s leaders would find the extended hand of diplomacy if they “unclenched” their fists.

“As I said in my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,” Obama said.

But as early as March there were already signs that Iran was in no mood to unclench and drop the rock it was holding in the form of its nuclear weapons program. That month, President Obama released a video, wishing the Iranians a happy New Year, which, in Iran, falls on the first day of spring. In return for his friendly overture, the American president received from the Iranian government nothing but a demand for apologies for America’s past transgressions, real or imagined, against Iran.

Sunday’s statement simply proves what most have suspected all along: One cannot talk to the Iranian leaders and that they are simply stringing out negotiations to complete their nuclear arms program. And the fact the Iranians still celebrate the 1979 American embassy seizure every November, a flagrant and criminal breach of international law, shows they do not want to talk to the United States in particular and are still willing to flout international norms.

Essentially, Iran’s leaders are religious fanatics who believe they have been chosen by God to establish a Shiite hegemony over the majority Sunni Islamic world and then, hopefully, over the whole planet. Of the world’s one billion Muslims, about 220 million are minority Shiites, of whom the largest number, about 62 million, live in Iran. Pakistan contains the next largest community of Shiites at 33 million, while India is third with 30 million and Iraq fourth with 18 million.

Iran’s mullah regime sees possessing nuclear weapons as instrumental to its plans for world domination. Nuclear arms would also add significant muscle to Iran’s security in a part of the world where any sign of weakness or vulnerability could be dangerous. Iranians have not forgotten how Iraq took advantage of Iran’s revolutionary turmoil to launch a devastating eight-year war against it in 1980. And like Russia with its former Eastern European satellites, Iran would also use nuclear weapons to intimidate weaker neighbors.

The Asia Times columnist, Spengler (a literary pseudonym), gives another reason why Iran is not afraid to seek confrontation over its nuclear weapons program. Iranian demographics have sunk to West German levels of about 1.6 children per woman, which would make waging a war in 20 years impossible. Iran currently has enough young men to embark on a military adventure, whether internally for nuclear weapons acquisition or externally against the Sunni world, while in twenty years it won’t.

Iran’s heavily-subsidized economy is also imploding. Like Argentina with its 1982 Falkland Islands’ invasion and Germany in 1939, economically it is now or never for Iran to make a grab for the ring. In a year’s time it may be too late, especially if oil prices drop dramatically again. Besides, again like Argentina, a military adventure would probably cause those Iranian people actively opposed to the regime to put aside their economic and political grievances and rally around the country’s leadership in nationalistic pride.

But if Iran wants a fight, it will most likely get one. The Islamic regime’s Holocaust-denying leadership has openly stated it wants to erase Israel from the map. Facing such a naked threat to their country’s existence, one military publication states the Israelis are now openly discussing using a missile attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. While Israel’s Jericho missiles can carry nuclear warheads, they also can be equipped with a conventional warhead. An attack by Israeli warplanes is also a possibility.

The Israelis already have American backing for such a strike if negotiations fail, as they appear to have. American Vice-President Joe Biden said in an ABC interview last July America would not prevent an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. And since the only other option would be a nuclear-armed Iran, the Israelis will now likely ensure this last round ends in a knockout.

INSS Insight No. 146

The seizure of the ship carrying weapons from Iran to Syria (intended apparently for Hizbollah via Syria) in early November revealed something of the scope of the struggle between Iran and Israel in general and on the high seas in particular, a struggle that is steadily moving upstage. However, the importance of the naval arena in the Iranian context lies not only in the foiling of attempts of weapons shipments making their way to Hizbollah and Hamas. The option of operating at sea allows Israel to refine its deterrent and offensive capabilities with regard to Iran and would allow the West to impose crippling sanctions on Iran if and when the need arises.

The efforts to foil the shipments of illegal weapons received new judicial and political legitimacy after the Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead, and are related to the Security Council resolutions on Iran’s nuclear program. Three incidents were reported this year where weapons shipments from Iran to Hizbollah via Syria were intercepted at sea.

The attempt to vary the smuggling methods, the high signature of sending containers by land and by air, and the ability to move large quantities of armaments by sea have all contributed to Iran’s increasing use of the maritime arena.

The seizure of the Francop – perhaps the biggest catch to date – followed a seizure the previous month by the Maltese authorities who, acting on a request from the United States, confiscated the Hansa India, a German-owned merchant vessel carrying arms from Iran to Syria. In January 2009, Cypriot authorities confiscated weapons and weapons-manufacturing equipment originating with the Iranian military industries carried by the Russian vessel Monchegorsk, after American ships of the 5^th Fleet had previously intercepted it in the Red Sea. As impressive as these successes are, they likely represent only the tip of the iceberg of Iran’s efforts. Israel is well aware of this, and therefore since early 2009 the Israeli navy has intercepted hundreds of suspicious vessels. Even if the successful interceptions do not significantly alter the next battle in Lebanon or Gaza, they serve to embarrass Iran and expose its intentions.

Hizbollah and Hamas are not the only organizations supported by Iran. At the end of October, the government in Sana’a announced it had seized an Iranian ship, the Mahan 1, carrying a wide range of ammunition intended for the Shiite rebels in the northwest of the country. This is a struggle that has recently spread and involves direct Saudi Arabian military activity, also at sea, in order to prevent additional Iranian arms shipments from reaching rebel hands.

The attack attributed to Israel in early 2009 on the convoy and vessels carrying weapons to Sudan did not occur in a vacuum. In recent years relations between Iran and the countries in the Horn of Africa have grown warmer, and Iran is trying to establish a military presence along the shipping routes in the region. There were reports of construction of an Iranian seaport on the Eritrean coast in the port city of Assab for use by the Revolutionary Guards. Iran’s growing naval presence at the Red Sea’s southern point of egress caused several Arab nations to announce last month the establishment of “an Arab naval taskforce in the Red Sea,” the first of its kind.

The Security Council’s decision on Iran provides a legal basis for increasing inspection of Iran. In addition, initiatives such as the PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative), even if limited in their ability to establish operational and intelligence gathering cooperation, are likely to serve as a platform for moves to curb Iran’s steps, especially with regard to the proliferation of non-conventional arms. The failure of the talks with Iran regarding its nuclear future may add to the West’s willingness to take these steps, especially in light of the low effectiveness of the economic sanctions imposed on Iran to date. The House of Representatives has even discussed a bill that would prevent oil distillates from entering Iran by land, air, or sea, though for now that bill has been shelved.

Presumably as part of preparations for the day after the failure of the dialogue with Iran, the 5^th Fleet is currently holding war games and discussing ways to increase the pressure on Iran, for example, by preventing its import of oil distillates Despite the fact that it is easier to enlist support (both internationally and within the United States) for a naval blockade than for attacking nuclear installations, a naval blockade is a de facto declaration of war. The blocking of distillates to Iran would be a severe blow to Iran, to the point of representing an actual threat to the stability of the regime. Therefore, even such a limited move is likely to arouse an extreme reaction on Iran’s part, whether by disrupting open shipping in the Persian Gulf and in various oil conveyance, storage, and production facilities, or by harming American interests in the region or the Gulf states themselves.

Israel’s campaign against arms smuggling from Iran has long taken place far from Iran’s shores, as in the seizure of the Karine A near Sharm a-Sheikh in January 2002. However, after the Second Lebanon War, and even more so after Operation Cast Lead, the efforts to foil smuggling attempts have been stepped up and occur far from Iran with cooperation from friendly nations in the region.

Israel is especially interested in naval activity in the Red Sea, both as a way to deter Iranian activity in this arena and to serve whenever necessary as a shipping route to Iran and back in the event that a military confrontation develops. Israel’s activities are meant to demonstrate to Iran that Israel is capable of causing it severe damage from a location that is less vulnerable to attack. In June 2009, the convoy of Israeli navy missile ships and submarines making their way south towards the Red Sea was highlighted, in order to signal to Iran that the Red Sea arena is important to Israel as well as to the bloc of pragmatic nations (in this case, Egypt) cooperating with it.

The sea is also of importance with regard to a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Reports in recent years have generally focused on aerial capability to damage the nuclear facilities, without discussing the advantages inherent in the various options open for taking action from the sea alongside the aerial possibilities. The increasing use of the Red Sea arena is likely designed to signal to Iran that Israel is capable of acting from the sea too.

Operating from the sea means operating from a space that is less vulnerable than what airpower uses, and allows the launch – without the need to go through the air space of other nations – of long range precision ammunition to damage targets in Iran. Generally speaking, naval platforms allow larger amounts of armaments, are more difficult to locate, and allow special operations in order to attack targets such as command and control positions and surface-to-surface missiles.

In the next battle Israel can expect most of its air force bases and airfields to be exposed to long range rocket and surface-to-surface missile fire over time and in ranges greater than ever before, and the importance of maritime activity will rise. As to the struggle against Iran, Israel must adhere to a policy that de facto expands its strategic borders and take naval action in order to demonstrate more clearly than ever the dangers of Iranian activity. This is also a signal that in terms of its nuclear program, time is running out and all options, including naval, are on the table.