The Obama wording is delightfully ambiguous. Does he mean that while he is not yet "reconciled" to Iran gaining a nuclear weapons capacity he might become such at some time in the nebulous future? Or, is he implying that his current status of not being "reconciled" might eventually harden into one of total irreconcilability?
The President did not deign to explain and the Associated Press reporter did not press him on the matter, preferring to elicit comments on the NBA and the death of Michael Jackson. The placement of the I-am-not-reconciled statement near the end of the interview seems to indicate that neither the president nor the reporter considered the matter of the "Mahdi Bomb" to be one of gravity.
Certainly not the gravity of the President's view of Validimir Putin's having "one foot in the past." It is, of course, Russia's (which is to say Putin's) position on Iranian matters which bode well to continue to prevent any possibility of real and effective sanctions being employed against the mullahocracy. The combination of an election conducted in the manner and with the lopsided outcome typical of the Soviet Union and its satellites with the killing repression of protesters has hardened political support in Europe and elsewhere for more effective sanctions against the Iranian government.
The outre Iranian arrest and detention of local employees of the British embassy in Tehran has united the European Union in a completely atypical desire to "do something" which might at least symbolically punish the mullahs for their egregious violation of diplomatic norms and international conventions on the status of diplomatic mission employees. The "correlation of forces" seemed to be swinging in favor of turning the screws at least a bit on Iran.
Then, along comes Putin's Russia. Let the record show that Russia fancies itself to be a member of the European community (construed broadly and when it is in Russia's interests.) Putin obviously sees himself as a European statesman (albeit one who looks better with his shirt and tie off than when trussed in full business attire.)
In a way which merits President Obama's characterization of having one foot in the past, Putin's government is opposed to any imposition of sanctions over such mere bagatelles as rigged elections, suppressed dissent, and the arrest of locals working for an embassy. As the Soviet (oops! Bad Geek,) Russian press notes with a becoming accuracy, not only is Russia the prime foreign backer of Iran in international fora, its government was the first to both recognise the re-election of Ahmedinejad and congratulate him on that feat.
Russia is building Iran's heavy water reactor which is eminently capable of producing more plutonium than the antiquated North Korean unit at Yongban. It is providing the start up fuel and other services, not all of which may have been mentioned publicly. And, along with NATO stalwarts German and France, it is in the "Billion Dollar Club"regarding last year's trade with the Islamist jihadist Tehran regime. (For the record, China is also in the club, and the US with over eight hundred million dollars of food sales is bucking for membership.)
When the "Billion Dollar Club" is considered, the harsh words of Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy for both Iran's nuclear adventure and its electoral misconduct ring hollow. Factoring in the unlimited diplomatic support of Russia and China, there are strong hints that the sanction regime espoused by the US these many years is but a mixture of empty rhetoric and wishful thinking.
Or, to put it slightly differently and focusing sharply on President Obama's call for "engagement" with the mullahs of Qom and their frontmen in Tehran, it is a quxiotic exercise at best. The President is (in the words of the Geekness who has an unmatched capacity to mangle cliches,) "honking up the wrong tree."
Which brings us to John Bolton. As readers (if any) of the Geek's maunderings will no doubt recall, the Geek is not a big fan of the neocon one-time US ambassador to the UN, Mr Bolton, who has never been in combat nor any closer to the killing and dieing than the Diplomats' Lounge at the UN, is a resolute supporter of war against countries such as Iraq under Saddam or Iran at any time subsequent to 1979.
He has re-entered the lists flying the banner of Israel. It is his position that the time has come for the Israelis to exercise the military option and abate the nascent nuclear menace of Iran. He deposes not on the probability of an Israeli success in the endeavor, apparently either considering such mundane matters as, "will it work?" to be beneath the dignity of a man of his political and intellectual sophistication or subscribing to the notion that the IAF is a collection of Supermen flying aircraft with capabilities transcending those ascribed to UFOs by mavens of that subject.
The consensus of informed and realistic opinion is that an IAF strike or strikes on the complex of hard and hardened targets comprising the Iranian nuclear research, development, and production universe would be, as Wellington said of Waterloo, "a near-run thing." The Iranian government and military have long reckoned with the possibility of an attack by either or both Israel and the US. They have taken impressive measures to make the task tougher and the results more debatable.
While the Iranians are given to bluster in the megaton range, it would be a mistake to undervalue their capacity for mischief making in response to any attack. Even if the Iranians did nothing, not even pushing the "go" button on their terrorist surrogates, the exceptionally nervous crowd known generically as "speculators" would push the price of oil to never-seen-before levels. This action without any other measure being taken by Tehran would be severely disruptive of the US and global economies.
Not a result that Mr Obama would like to deal with, particularly considering his ambitions for "transforming" many basic features of American economic and social life.
But, Mr Bolton has apparently convinced himself that even severe economic and, potentially at least, political turmoil throughout the West and much of the world which would necessarily follow an Israeli attack is of no moment. It is inconceivable that such a staunch supporter of Israel as Mr Bolton has not thought through what the reaction directed against Israel would be if a global economic shock caused by escalating oil prices resulted in the days and weeks following the bombs falling.
Or, perhaps, Mr Bolton is convinced or at least hopeful that the Iranian reaction would be so bloody, so shocking, that the world would rally as one to the defense of Israel. Perhaps not the world, but surely the US, he may have told and sold himself.
Considering the delusional state of Mr Bolton's contention that the current unrest within Iran provides an excellent opportunity for "public diplomacy" to convince the Iranian people that any attack on the nuclear facilities is not an attack on the Iranians--only their government, it is within the realm of plausibility that he has been equally self-deluded on the critical matters of global and US response to the aftershocks of the Israeli attack.
No, Mr Bolton, the Israeli option is not a good way to go.
The Geek is not in favor of a nuclear armed Iran. Iran may or may not be governed by rational men capable of understanding and acting upon the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD.) The mullahs may or may not be equal to Saddam Hussein who, when he received word via Jordan's King Hussein that the Israelis would respond with a nuclear strike to any use of chemical weapons against their country, never ordered the already loaded and good to go Scuds to be launched.
Saddam was a rational actor. The mullahs and their subordinates may or may not be such. It is a risk the US and the rest of the world should not have to entertain. Certainly the Israelis or for that matter the Sunni Arab regimes of the Gulf should not face the very real existential threat that a nuclear armed Iran would constitute regardless of the applicability of the MAD calculus.
This leaves a very unpleasant, quite brutal option. Should President Obama mutate from being merely not "reconciled" to "utterly irreconcilable," the only remaining option is that of a direct US attack on the facilities. There is no genuine doubt that the US could obliterate the nuclear constellation.
The results would not be pretty. The oil shock would come as day follows night. Unless neutralised, the Iranians would respond with conventional and surrogate or proxy forces against the US and its allies both in the region and elsewhere. The Muslim world (at least publicly) would be all frothy with expressions of hatred and demands for revenge. There would be Islamist jihadists aplenty to take up the call and act on it.
Even allies which had given at least tacit and private approval to any American attack would be afflicted with morning after regrets. These regrets would be exhibited in numerous ways, all of which would be unpleasant. Rivals to the US such as Russia and China would leap to take any and all advantages which they might see. The consequences of this feature alone are difficult to prognosticate in detail but would be both extensive and negative overall.
Indeed, a powerful argument can be mounted for the contention that an American attack, even one which was totally successful, would constitute an existential threat to the US in its aftermath. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the nascent nuclear capacity may never present a genuine, direct threat to the US. Have a problem with that? Well, then consider the asymmetry resident presently as well as in the near-term potential of a maturing missile defense technology and a (barely) emergent delivery system technology.
Since the Obama administration is not one particularly enamored with either foreign affairs or contemplating the potential of military operations with a potential for unintended consequences far worse than the threat they were oriented toward countering, it is unlikely in the extreme that the American option would be exercised. It is almost as unlikely that the Obama administration would do anything other than strain every sinew to prevent the exercise of the Bolton supported Israeli option.
So, what does that leave?
Two possibilities.
The first is a diplomatic miracle requiring Russia being induced to switch sides, China, ditto, and the French and German governments cutting their own economic throats by dropping membership in the "Billion Dollar Club." (Oh, and the US deciding that food exports to the citizens living under the current regime were no longer "humanitarian" in nature.)
The second is for President Obama to suddenly realise that he is totally "reconciled" with the idea of Iran joining the Nuclear Club.
A great set of choices, isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment