WarSclerotic

ISSA & BURTON & MILLER: Nuclear-armed mullahs are not an option – Washington Times.

By Reps. Darrell Issa, Dan Burton and Jeff Miller

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems hell-bent on enriching uranium and developingthe other complex components and specialized parts necessary to deliver and detonate a nuclear weapon. President Obama’s policy in response is far from clear-cut.

We recognize that any assessment of the secret activities of a closed society like Iran is both difficult and necessarily tentative. Even with a well-honed intelligence network, it is impossible to understand the precise status and contours of the Iranian nuclear enterprise. Although some public accounts have indicated that intelligence agencies believe the Iranian bomb quest has been set back by sabotage and the defection of essential individuals, the inherent limitations of intelligence collection and analysis means that these assessments may be wrong. Iran may be even closer to producing a nuclear weapon than the intelligence community believes.

Only Mr. Ahmadinejad and his cronies know for certain.

What we do know, however, is that Iran continues to conduct military exercises in the Persian Gulf to showcase the regime’s ability to threaten a vital transit route for the region’s petroleum exports. America’s dangerous dependence on foreign oil means that Iran’s hostile behavior poses a national security threat. And while the threat from Iran’s conventional weapons is serious, the threat to this strategic waterway from a nuclear-armed Iran would be a thousand times worse.

The United States must always be prepared for the possibility of a “strategic surprise.” Yet given this administration’s national security failures, we have little assurance that the president is equipped to handle an Iranian crisis.

Regrettably, it is increasingly apparent that the president’s “outstretched hand” to the Islamist regime in Iran has failed, while his continual scolding of Israel appears to have further emboldened Mr. Ahmadinejad’s hostilities toward this important regional ally. Furthermore, the administration’s enthrallment with multilateral postulation about the benefit of aggressive global sanctions has accomplished nothing to mitigate the prospect that radicalized Muslims around the world might obtain nuclear weapons.

Some have suggested that the administration has tacitly accepted the development of an Iranian bomb. These analysts argue that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speculation about a U.S. regional nuclear umbrella, in addition to the administration’s plans to place missile defenses in Eastern Europe andthedispatchof other anti-missile weapons to the Mideast, indicate that the president is resigned to Iran’s eventual acquisition of atomic arms.

The risk of Iranian nuclear weapons, surprise or not, is deeply troubling. So are the reports that the administration has conceded this eventuality.

First, “containing” a nuclear-equipped Iran as the United States did the Soviet Union during the Cold War would require an explicit commitment to use overwhelming force in certain circumstances. It is not clear whether the president is willing or prepared to make such a commitment in the case of Iran.

Second, even if this commitment was forthcoming, many experts do not believe it is possible to contain Iran. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union refused to take overtly hostile actions directly against the U.S. or its allies during the Cold War, presumably because it feared a massive nuclear retaliatory strike. Essential to this assessment is the fact that the leaders of the Soviet Union understood that American retaliation would preclude the possibility of an eventual global communist triumph.

Iranian leaders may not be encumbered by the modicum of rational statecraft distilled into the collective Soviet brain. Rather than discouraging the use of nuclear weapons against U.S. interests, the prospect of inducing destruction may actually appeal to the mullahs calling the shots in Tehran.

It is telling that while the Obama administration downgrades the role U.S. nuclear weapons play in our national security, the Iranians seem to be striving unabated to obtain atomic arms. Thebestway to counteract uncertainty about Iran’s intentions,however, isa certain indication of what is intolerable to the United States.

The first step to halting an Iranian bomb program is increasing our intelligence-gathering capabilities to monitor the progress of Iran’s nuclear program. Meanwhile,effective sanctions must be imposed immediately, and the United States must demonstrate its unequivocal support for the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. We also must not foreclose the possibility of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities or the option of overwhelming retaliatory force should Iran launch itself or supply terrorists with the resources to launch an attack on the United States or our allies. Iran should have no doubt about the full force of America’s military strength and no question about our willingness to use it.

To date, however, the president’s policy for dealing with Iran is both incoherent and frighteningly similar to the failed approach of the Carter era. It wasn’t until a reinvigorated Kremlin – tempted by an anemic and indecisive American administration – sent Soviet tanks into Afghanistan that President Carter began to acknowledge the threat of a nuclear-armed foe. We hope it will not require another strategic surprise to educate President Obama about a pressing contemporary nuclear threat.

Rep. Darrell Issa of California is ranking member of the House Oversight Committee. Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana is ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East. Rep. Jeff Miller of Florida is ranking member of the House Armed Services subcommittee on terrorism and unconventional arms.

U.S./IRAN: Sanctions Debate Heats Up – IPS ipsnews.net.

By Jim Lobe*

WASHINGTON, Apr 28, 2010 (IPS) – Wednesday’s highly unusual public launch of a “conference committee” of both houses of Congress to hash out differences in long-pending legislation to impose unilateral sanctions on Iran marks a new stage in the escalating debate over what to do about Tehran’s nuclear programme.

With mid-term elections only six months away, many lawmakers are eager to demonstrate their strong support for Israel, which has argued for the adoption of “crippling” sanctions against the Islamic Republic as the only way to halt its alleged effort to acquire nuclear weapons short of a military attack.

But they are running into opposition from the administration of President Barack Obama which, while declaring that it, too, favours sanctions, insists that it be given sufficient time and flexibility in imposing them to ensure that they do not undermine U.S. efforts to rally other key countries behind multilateral sanctions or alienate key sectors of the Iranian population.

Meanwhile, the entire strategy of using sanctions as an effective way to pressure Iran to curb its nuclear programme is coming under renewed question from several quarters.

Neo-conservatives and other right-wing hawks, notably former U.N. Amb. John Bolton and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, argue that sanctions – whether sweeping and unilateral as those being considered by Congress, or more narrowly targeted and multilateral as those favoured by Obama – are unlikely to deter Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. In their view, Washington needs to prepare for a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities or, in any event, not prevent Israel from carrying one out.

At the same time, some Iran specialists fault the administration for not making more generous offers to Iran during its “engagement” phase last year before moving to a containment strategy that includes additional sanctions, as well as other forms of pressure.

In their view, the “pressure track” – whether unilateral or multilateral – will not only prove ineffective, but will also strengthen Tehran’s hardliners and ultimately make war more, rather than less, likely.

Cheered on by the so-called “Israel Lobby” centred around the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its Christian Zionist allies, the House of Representatives voted 412-12 last December to approve a far-reaching sanctions bill that, among other measures, would penalise foreign companies that export gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran.

The Senate followed with an even more sweeping bill aimed at third-country companies the following month.

Largely at the administration’s behest, however, the Democratic leadership of both the House and the Senate held off selecting its delegates to a House-Senate conference committee charged with reconciling the two bills until just last week.

The administration had requested the delay to carry out intensive consultations with other members of the U.N. Security Council in hopes of getting it to approve a fourth round of sanctions against Iran, the specific terms of which are currently being negotiated.

The Council has approved three previous sets of sanctions against Iran since 2006 for failing to heed demands to stop enriching uranium and to clear up unanswered questions posed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regarding its nuclear programme.

The administration has argued that imposing unilateral sanctions before the Council acts would threaten the multilateral consensus it is building with its European partners to get a strong U.N. resolution.

“We want to make sure we don’t send wrong messages before we get everyone signed up on what we can achieve internationally,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned lawmakers last month.

The administration has also argued that Obama should be given the authority to exempt from punishment any companies from other nations, such as China, that he deems are cooperating with Washington’s Iran policy – a position that was harshly criticised, especially by Republicans, at Wednesday’s opening conference committee hearing.

In addition, the administration said that sweeping sanctions, such as the one punishing foreign companies that export gasoline to Iran, could, if enforced, harm and ultimately alienate the general public in Iran and thus trigger a nationalist backlash that could benefit hardliners, notably the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and weaken the opposition Green Movement.

As a result, the White House, which has reportedly stepped up its lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill significantly in the last two weeks, is pressing the conferees both to grant the president significant authority to waive sanctions if he deems it necessary to the national interest and to delay final passage of a compromise bill until the end of next month.

Most analysts believe that the Security Council is unlikely to reach agreement on a new sanctions resolution before then, and, in any event, Lebanon, which will preside over Council in May and whose government relies on the support of Tehran’s local ally, Hezbollah, is expected to prevent any resolution from coming to a vote.

In its efforts to rally support for a new sanctions resolution, the administration reportedly dropped several key provisions in its initial draft, including sanctions that would deny Iran access to international banking services, capital markets and to international airspace and waters for its commercial trade.

The administration and its European allies are now reportedly pressing for a resolution that would include an arms embargo on Iran, backed by the authority to seize Iranian vessels suspected of carrying weapons or nuclear-related material, other measures designed to discourage commercial relations with Iranian companies allegedly involved in nuclear transactions, and restrictions on foreign investment in Iran’s energy sector.

Some of these provisions are expected to be resisted by veto-wielding China, a major investor in Iran’s energy sector, as well as by Brazil and Turkey, and may be further watered down.

Analysts on Capitol Hill believe that the administration, which is strongly backed by business and trade associations whose members have extensive international interests, is likely to succeed in getting significant waiver authority in the final version, despite the wishes of AIPAC and its allies that a sweeping sanctions bill with very limited waiver authority be approved as quickly as possible.

The administration has bolstered its case, particularly with fellow-Democrats, by quietly pledging to follow up a U.N. resolution with much-tougher measures targeted on specific IRGC-controlled commercial institutions, including, for example, Iran’s national shipping line, to be adopted by its European and other western allies on their own.

The sanctions debate, both in Congress and the Security Council, has already had an impact, according to administration officials. They point out that a number of multinational companies and subsidiaries that have done business with Iran have either severed their ties with Iranian partners or reduced their operations there.

Among the most significant in the energy sector are Royal Dutch Shell, Malaysia’s state oil company Petronas, Netherlands-based Vitol, Swiss-based Glencore and Trafigura. France’s Total announced this week that it will end gasoline sales to Iran if sanctions are approved.

US official warns of Hezbollah missile threat – Wikinews, the free news source.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, along with Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak, warned yesterday that that the guerrilla group Hezbollah was in possession of more weapons than some governments.

Gates, after meeting with Barak, said that both Syria and Iran were responsible for providing weapons of “ever increasing capability” to Hezbollah, although he declined to confirm that the group had gained possession of ballistic missiles called Scuds that are able of reaching targets within Iran. According to Gates, Hezbollah’s military capabilities were “obviously destabilising for the whole region.”

Barak said that missiles owned by Hezbollah had the potential to “disrupt the very delicate balance in Lebanon,” although he stated that a military conflict as a result of the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah was unlikely. He said that “We [Israel] do not intend to provoke any kind of major collision in Lebanon, or vis-a-vis Syria,” though he added that “we are watching closely these developments and think that they do not contribute to stability in the region.”

Syria has denied the charges of providing Hezbollah with weapons, saying that Israel intended to “further strain the atmosphere in the region.” The country’s prime minister also commented that Israel was only trying to find an excuse for military action.

Hezbollah in 2006 launched thousands of missiles into Israel during the 2006 Lebanon War, and Israel is concerned that it has replenished its armament to the extent that it could attack Israel on behalf of Iran if the latter, which provides both arms and monetary aid to Hezbollah, came under attack from Israel. These concerns were confirmed by an American report released last week, which said that Hezbollah had indeed rearmed itself to higher levels that during the 2006 conflict.

It’s Time to Brandish the Big(ger) Stick | The Harvard Crimson.

We’ve been had.

On April 13, Behzad Soltani, deputy director of Iran’s Atomic Commission, proclaimed, “Iran will join the world nuclear club within a month.” Granted, Iranian leadership is prone to hyperbole and this could just be Tehran posturing to disrupt President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit. Regardless, we should be very concerned. We have spent the last six years in a futile cycle of proffered carrots and brandished sticks with the Iranian government. If we are to learn from our relations with North Korea, then this time we have to pick either the carrot or the stick and make it big, before it is too late.

Even before Soltani’s boast, indications that Iran was nearing operational nuclear arms have been growing stronger in the last few months.  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled on April 9 a revamped centrifuge capable of enriching uranium at faster speeds that, according to the State Department, would be unnecessary for peaceful nuclear power. The Arak heavy water plant and the Bushehr atomic reactor, both almost completed, could combine to produce dangerous quantities of plutonium for nuclear warheads. Furthermore, according to the “Weekly Standard,” a thus far unreleased report by the International Atomic Energy Agency documents that Iran was recently testing sophisticated weapons technology for nuclear warheads.

What is particularly threatening about the reality of an Iran with nuclear weapons is its relationships with half a dozen terrorist groups. Whereas North Korea, or even Soviet Russia, would more likely and more rationally avoid mutually assured destruction, a radical zealot is liable to attack an American city without regard to his or her future.

The pieces for today’s quagmire began to fall into a place after the election of Ahmadenijad in 2005. Iran resumed uranium conversion that year and since then has been on a steady path toward developing nuclear power capability. A National Intelligence Estimate provided their infamously hopeful report in 2007 that declared Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003. However, that report has since been discredited based on its narrow-minded focus on the actual designing of weapons. As the world prepares for a nuclear-armed Iran, it has become clearer that Iran’s trajectory towards achieving that status has been remarkably direct.

The United States’ diplomatic relations with Iran over this time have been a series of blunders characterized by a cycle of ineffective sanctions and weak peace offerings. Furthermore, the U.S. has set countless deadlines, only to have them ignored with minimal punishment.

For instance, in March of 2005, President Bush decided to offer economic incentives including membership in the World Trade Organization to Iran if they agreed to abandon their desire for nuclear power. A year later, after Iran had successfully enriched uranium, the United States, working multilaterally with Britain and France, threatened Iran with harsher actions if they failed to suspend their uranium enrichment. Then, only a few weeks later, the U.S. retracted the stick and presented the carrot offering to engage in direct talks with Iran if it agreed to abandon its uranium enrichment program.

The United States’ primary strategy in attempting to rein in Iran has been economic sanctions. Unfortunately, these sanctions have had only a small effect on the Iranian economy as evidenced by the growth in its 2008 GDP by a strong 6.4 percent.

While the United States has been implementing sharper trade sanctions, the economies of Germany, China, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates have reaped the benefits of a larger share of Iranian trade. President Obama recognizes that in order to provide truly effective economic sanctions they must be multilateral and, most importantly, include China and Russia.  He has recently discussed economic sanctions with both Chinese President Hu Jintao and Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Both nations have proven unreliable on this issue in the past and furthermore, if Iran is truly only a month, or perhaps months, from developing nuclear warheads, then even economic sanctions from every developed nation would be rendered irrelevant.

Likewise, offering positive incentives to Iran may be too little too late at this stage in its development of nuclear technology. Of course, I am not advocating that we all start singing renditions of “Bomb Iran,” but military action should not be disallowed on principle. In fact, I would argue that our reliance on soft power without the implicit threat of true hard power is the fundamental reason why both North Korea and Iran have comfortably duped us.

President Obama must either immediately convince international leaders that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave danger to international security and implement broader economic sanctions, or plan for military action. Or we can continue to stutter through weak narrow trade restrictions while providing excuses until Iran finally joins the nuclear club.  Let’s hope Obama chooses one of the first two actions—our safety depends on it.