Skip to content

How not to convince Iran to stop making nukes

October 28, 2010

U.S. Preparing New Nuclear Offer for Iran, Officials Say – NYTimes.com.

I found this article interesting for a number of reasons, the primary being how do we decide what people we send to speak to Islamic dictatorships run under Sharia law?

The European Union’s foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, has requested Iran meet with her in November.  Our secretary of State is Hillary Clinton, under Bush it was Condoleeza Rice.  I have nothing against women serving in these roles, it is Islam that has problems with women.  By their own writings and actions, women are considered property and second class citizens, do we not immediately negotiate from a disadvantage by putting people the Muslim world regards as inferior in charge of negotiations?

If true negotiations are the outcome, what purpose is served by having people the opposition considers weak and mentally inferior handling the talks?  Would we not accomplish more by having someone Islam at least respects?  Like a General, or at least someone most of the world considers a bad-ass?  Like Ambassador John Bolton?  Maybe the reason we are getting no where with these people is because we are playing into their long-held beliefs of Western culture, that we are weak and do not possess the intestinal fortitude to get the job done.

Back to the article.  Apparently are our new strategy with Iran and its nuclear program, is wait and see, and hope the sanctions force them to the negotiating table.  The article says:

American officials say it is not crucial for Iran to return to negotiations in earnest right away; the longer they wait, the more time available for sanctions to bite.

But this waiting game allows Iran to continue the actions we want them to stop, mainly enriching uranium.  The article continues:

Iran already has enough fuel for two bombs, though American officials estimate it would take at least a year to enrich its current stockpile to bomb grade and then fabricate it into a weapon. “That’s a long time,” one American official said recently, enough for the United States or Israel to take military action to stop the program, he contended.

Someone explain to mean the sense it makes to wait until you have to take military action to stop something?  My guess is it is the Obama administration’s complete lack of understanding of the military.  They hold a neophytic naiveté when it comes to the use of military action to prevent something, similar to LBJ in Vietnam.  To progressives, the military is a one-sided affair, egged on by Generals who are going to paint any operation in the rosiest light possible.

Just because Israel successfully knocked out nuclear plants in the 80’s, does not mean it is an easier task 30 years later.  If the enemy lived in a bubble, where they were not being supplied by Russia and China, then I would say the task would be similar.  But technology advances on both sides.  And of course, since we have been talking about a “military option” for two years now, any suggestion the Iranians are not ready for such an attack is ridiculous.

Then of course there is Murphy’s Law, which for the non-military says, “Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong.”  Military operations are not cut and dry simple tasks laid out on a map, where  the operators just need to connect the dots or fill in the numbers.  Often things can and do go wrong, as evidenced by the aid worker killed by a friendly grenade in Afghanistan during an attempt to free her.

Waiting until the use of force is the only option is insanity.  What happens if we screw up?  I am not knocking our military, I love em, but things go bad, ask Jimmy carter.  If we fail in our one and only chance to stop Iran from making nukes, what do we do?  Escalate from what would presumably have been a secret operation with plausible deniability to something more overt?  How would Iran respond to that?  Are we ready to spark of another war while we are already engaged in two?

As a hypothetical, what would happen if we tried to use force a year ago and we failed?  First, we obviously would have pissed off Iran, but they already hate us, so what?  Secondly, they would know we are serious.  Thirdly, they would be negotiating from weakness, even though we failed they know we are wiling to use force to stop them.  And lastly, we still have the option of trying again.

As it stands now, Iran is fully convinced we will not use force, because we waited too long.  Their plants are up and running.  What sense does it make to attack an operating nuclear plant when you could have done it before it was completed?  Look through it from Iran’s eyes.  If they had the capability to knock out an enemy’s weapon manufacturing capabilities do you think they would have shown restraint?  Of course not, so again, we are negotiating from weakness.

The Obama administration is talking hard, and carrying a very small stick.  The article continues:

Gary Samore, Mr. Obama’s coordinator for countering unconventional weapons, told an audience at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington last week that if Iran acquired a weapon, it “would have an utterly catastrophic effect” in the region. If successful, Iran could drive other states in the Persian Gulf to seek their own nuclear weapons. An attack by Israel on Iran’s facilities, he added, could set off a regional war. Mr. Samore described stopping Iran’s program as his “No. 1 job.”

Does anyone feel like Obama is acting like it is his “No. 1 job”?

Two years into office, Mr. Obama has organized an impressive sanctions regime and managed to combine diplomacy and pressure better than many experts had predicted. But so far he has little to show for it, which has prompted a discussion inside the White House about whether it would be helpful, or counterproductive, to have him talk more openly about military options.

So he has done all these great things, but he has little to show for it?  That tells me his sanctions, diplomacy and pressure were not the answer.  It was the wrong diagnosis for the problem.  Talking about military options would be a start, last time I checked we have the largest and most powerful military in the history of the world, I am thinking that’s a pretty good negotiating tool.  The article continues:

Several European officials have discouraged that approach. But they also worry that negotiating about the fate of uranium that Iran has enriched in violation of Security Council commands could have the effect of convincing the Iranians they could retain some of their enrichment capability at the end of any negotiation.

So when all this goes through the wash, the end result will be, Iran keeps its nuclear program, and now maintains its enrichment capability.  What exactly are you doing up there Mr. president?

Advertisements
11 Comments leave one →
  1. bunkerville permalink
    October 28, 2010 1:27 pm

    One has only to look at the Presidents Schedule each day or week. He spends very little time doing anything concerning governance. I was stunned last week. He held his “Monthly” meeting with his National Security council for an hour concerning our two wars.. Bet he stepped out before it was over. Chilling. Destroying our country is his only goal.
    Great place.. we added it to our blogroll. Thanks for stoppin by.

    • October 28, 2010 1:38 pm

      Hey, thank you for the insightful comments and adding me to your blogroll, I shall return the favor.

  2. October 28, 2010 2:06 pm

    Blipped you last night…hope you got a bump.

    Regarding the post – what do you expect from an administration thinks like those that elected him; that all war is evil? They will no evil when it comes to their door step.

    The most frightening thing about the Islamic expansion of power is that they only respect power. Using Palestine as an example, they have constantly used victimhood as a means of crippling the only weapon they truly respect and fear, power (Israel’s). It’s a successful tactic, and a smart one. When teams play the Colts in the NFL do you think they go in with a game plan centered around stopping Joseph Addai? Of course not; they target their greatest weapon – Manning.

    The same has been true in our present struggle. The left has bought into the Islamic victimhood and in doing so has become our achilles heel, making our potential power moot. Our military is what they fear, not our sanctions, negotiators, UN pull, democratic process, rhetoric, etc.

    You’re right…send Bolton over with Netanyahu trailing behind rubbing his hands and drooling and we’ll get things done.

    • October 28, 2010 2:30 pm

      Wow, thank you so much. I’m sorry I didn’t catch it, I shut down everything to watch the World Series – I love America’s past-time – and completely missed it. Thank you for the kind words and the link. I love your blog and read it every day.

      • October 28, 2010 6:09 pm

        Sure thing. John and I have some plans for The Current. Perhaps we should get in contact via email some time. If you would like to get in touch my email address is righthandmanTC@gmail.com.

  3. LD Jackson permalink
    October 28, 2010 7:16 pm

    I hate to see relations between the United States and Iran get more fragile than they already are, but I am convinced the only thing these people understand is a show of force. Playing patty cake with them obviously hasn’t worked.

    • October 28, 2010 7:45 pm

      I understand the inclusive mentality of thinking everyone shares the same values as we do, but it is just wishful thinking to expect people who have consistently shown no regard for anything but violence to succumb to non-violent pressures. Iran, like North Korea, does not care about its civilians, they are pawns for the very few in power who seek to keep that power at any cost, which in both examples will be the end of a nuclear bomb.

      It is the only logical conclusion to their years of dictatorship. When we proved how quickly (when we want to) we can topple one of their governments by taking out Saddam, they knew they could and would be next unless they got something to check our ability. Once Iran goes nuclear, we could still take them out, but at a cost to troops that no president will be willing to accept.

      And that is only in self-defense of their dictatorships. We also have to worry about what happens when they make a bomb small enough for one man to transport, and then he lights it off in America.

  4. JustFacts permalink
    October 29, 2010 11:49 pm

    Isn’t it amazing how much better the world thinks of us now that we have such an articulate, intelligent leader instead of such a bumbling oaf as G. W. Bush. Isn’t it strange that the world hasn’t fallen at the feet of The Won. He has such a nuanced demeanor. I mean, Bush was going around insulting world leaders by giving them inappropriate gifts, bowing down to kings and religious leaders, returning historical gifts, etc. Oh wait, that wasn’t W. Don’t tell me now, it will come to me in a minute.

    You know, it’s not that the Emperor has no clothes! The clothes have no Emperor! No matter how hard Zero tries he’s still just an empty suit.

    • October 30, 2010 1:14 am

      I think we could live with an empty vacuous suit, a la Carter, but Obama is down-right dangerous. Everyone looked at Carter and knew he was the village idiot, kinda like how we think of Biden nowadays. But Obama isn’t just incompetent, he is doing exactly what you would do if you wanted to make us less safe.

      The point of my post was more the inverse of the headline, which would be, “How to convince Iran not to stop making nukes”. His approach to Iran has been about emboldening our enemies with no attempt at anything besides showing them we will do nothing, regardless of the provocation. Its not like Ahmadinejad is hiding his intentions. He talks about destroying Israel, one of America’s staunchest allies regardless of what Obama and Carter think. He not only talks about it, but with such ease and lack of restraint as if he were talking about cleaning cockroaches out of his garage. But, at least we know where our enemies stand, the hard part is figuring out where our President does.

      • JustFacts permalink
        October 30, 2010 10:06 am

        But, just like the old phrase, “You can’t judge a book by its cover,” isn’t that what we have to do with The Won. We can only look at his empty suit and imagine what is inside. Since the MSM has refused to do their job and reveal the true past of Zero, the voting public only has his words and promises (his suit), to give a clue to his agenda. What other public figure has been given such a break. And, all because we had a collective guilt complex and needed to show the world we had overcome slavery. Let’s “hope” that the electorate has come to its senses and determined that elections have consequences. Then we can “change” the direction of this slippery slope that we have been on the last few years.

      • October 30, 2010 10:13 am

        I hope SEIU can not change the results on Tuesday.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: