What You Should Be Reading

Dean breaks down the lying on the left regarding the government shutdown and what the Republicans are trying to accomplish. A small excerpt:

You are suggesting the House Continuing Resolution that passed late last Saturday night somehow defunded or struck down the ACA. This is false. The House funded all government operations and merely delayed the implementation of the individual mandate by one year. If “delayed by one year” sounds familiar, it should because that’s what the President has done for a select few.
. . .
What the House did through the legislative process, the President did illegally through executive fiat.

KTCat has been following the slow motion train wreck that is Japan.  He predicts that government spending and taxing and money printing won't save Japan.  He also advises us to follow the (smart) money.

Poll numbers show the San Diego mayor's race tightening as Faulconer and Alvarez increase their name recognition.  The UCFW Local 135 called the house asking my son to pledge support for Alvarez.

The Head of Iran's cyber warfare program was found dead in the woods with two bullets in his heart.  Is this assymetric retaliation or an Israeli op or both?  An earlier post discussed the Obama's administration complicity in giving Iran cover for its successful attacks on U.S. Navy networks.  We are at war with Iran whether we like it or not, but it is convenient for this administration to deny it from the public.  I look more and more to the foreign press to get accurate reporting on cyber issues, as I don't believe that the U.S. press is willing to give up their comfy spot on Obama's lap.

Bombing Iran

Calvin Coolidge is famously said to have described a Sunday sermon as being about "sin." When asked what the preacher had said about it, he said "He was agin it." Similarly, I feel the same way about the topic of bombing Iran, "I'm agin it." The Economist has both a leader and extensive analysis on the subject, and draws the same conclusion. In summary, the attacks are unlikely to be successful in halting Iran's ambitions and will invite retaliation at great cost. Some may wish to believe that an attack would destabilize the regime; but if so, why have dictatorships throughout the ages manufactured external threats to consolidate their grip on power. I have some expertise in this area, my professional opinion is that neither the U.S. nor Israel have the means to indefinitely derail Iran's nuclear ambitions.

However, a nuclear armed Iran; given the current leadership, would be a disaster for the world. It would certainly embolden Iran to continue to meddle in the affairs of its neighbors. Further, one should consider that the Iranians would actually launch nukes at Israel. So doing nothing is also unacceptable as well. The element of time is essential, and the best published Israeli estimate is that the Iranians are two to three years away from possessing four nuclear warheads that could be mounted on ballistic missiles. (As an aside, those who ridiculed Reagan's ideas that we should invest in anti-ballistic missile technology are owed a big fat slap down. While ABM technology can't stop thousands of Russian nukes, the argument used against the project, a mere four nukes is a much simpler, although still complex problem.)

The threat of Israeli bombing has had the salutary effect of convincing the world to take tougher sanctions. Inflation and unemployment are ratcheting up. The Iranian currency has lost half its value. The latest sanction is to shut out Iran from the world's electronic banking system, which is basically the same thing. But we need to keep thinking asymmetrically, that is rather than directly attacking the offending program, attack where Iran is weak. Going after the gasoline imports that Iran needs, despite all its oil, should be the next move. Despite reducing its dependency on gasoline imports, they are still running at 50,000 barrels per month. The regime's weakness accrues to its mismanagement of the economy; it practices a sort of theocratic socialism. Its support comes from outside of the cities, where the socialistic largess is directed.

Finally, the shock of seeing nuclear weapons actually launched 65 years since the only two that were ever released in war will shock the world. We might consider that Iran itself would be profoundly changed if it did so. We have seen Pakistan possess nuclear weapons for some number of years, and it is far less stable, and no nukes have been used. While I don't want to count on the Iranians not using their nukes, we have to remember that their use brings a huge downside to their government as well.

Update on Iran

I blogged earlier about increasing Iranian bellicosity and its implication for more war in the Middle East. I thought that part of the reason for the increasingly belligerent stance was internal to Iranian politics. The NYT is reporting that President Ahmadinejad will be compelled to testify on "irregularities" regarding his economic leadership. Clearly an indicator that the populace is restless and that theocratic socialism isn't delivering the goods. What else?

In addition to economic issues, hard-line clerics devoted to Ayatollah Khamenei have long harbored suspicions that Mr. Ahmadinejad leads a “deviant current” that would challenge their primacy in all aspects of society.

Like Mahdism?

Mehdi Khalaji opines in the WSJ that we bypass dealing with both mullahs and the crazy Ahmadinejad and influence the real source of power in Iran, the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC).

Iran is a den of political intrigue, with sophisticated and nuanced maneuvering among factions, albeit within an increasingly narrow element of the elite. In such a system, the leader's position is much more vulnerable than in a state of iron-fisted, one-man rule.
. . .
What has really stoked the Revolutionary Guard's anger at Khamenei is that they see him as responsible for the tougher Western sanctions that have hurt their economic interests. The Revolutionary Guard has been a major player in the Iranian economy for more than two decades. Today, even most private businesses cannot function without some "special arrangement" with the Revolutionary Guard. [ed. note: And I thought we had a military-industrial problem!]
. . .
A wiser course would be to prepare now to open channels of communication with Revolutionary Guard leaders, who are surely busy planning ways to address the mounting pressure of international sanctions.

I couldn't agree more. Every maneuver we make that delays Iran getting a nuke, moves us closer to the day when a popular uprising topples the regime.

More War in the Middle East?

Iran is giving signals that it is preparing for war with Israel. Look at this screen capture from the Persian language Fars News Agency's front page:

Note the tattered Israeli flag, I am unable to get a translation of the web site, so I don't know what is being said. WND is reporting that a conservative website (this link is to a Google translation of the site*) that has ties to the reigning Ayatollah is publishing clerical (that is legal in Muslim parlance) justification for attacking Israel and killing all Jews. It is my recollection that tyrannies launch propaganda campaigns in preparation for war. Israel is taking precautions world wide to protect their embassies, another relevant fact.

Check the difference between the English language version of Iran's official news site and the Farsi version above:

Here the approach is more subtle, the Iranian Defense Minister touts the launch of a satellite; but we know that satellite launching technology is indistinguishable from ballistic missile technology. In the fifth article, Brigadier General Mohammad Pakpour, head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warns that the IRGC will deliver a crushing blow to Israel if they attack, but maintains that Iran will not attack first.

Given that the Iranians are probably about a year away from assembling up to four nukes, I am not sure what their game plan is. Perhaps they are trying to provoke an Israeli attack in order to build domestic support. If so, then perhaps the Israelis would be better served by not attacking the nuclear capability; but that is asking a lot of a country being threatened with nuclear attack. I think that we should never forget that the United States isn't the only country whose foreign policy is driven by domestic politics.

*Google translate provides the following translation of from an article on the Iranian website alef.ir. I am excerpting here for posterity. I cannot vouch for its accuracy of translation, however based on context I think there are many object-subject reversals, so this article is mostly discussing attacking Israel, even though portions indicate Israel is attacking.

Jurisprudential reasons for Israel's destruction

Guestbook: Alireza Forghani, 15 Persian date Bahman 90

Published: Saturday, 15 Persian date Bahman 1390 13:16

Necessary destruction of Israel from the perspective of Imam Khomeini (RA):
"Today the first qibla of Muslims to Israel, this cancerous tumor has been the Middle East. It satanic Israeli media division with the bombers. On every Muslim is required to equip themselves against Israel. My nearly twenty years of international Zionism Hey, I have and it's safe for all the world's revolutions and the liberation of Iran's recent past, I do not know. I have already noted, the usurper state of Israel, which is aiming for is the great danger and fear of Islam and Muslim countries is If the Muslims to make their deadlines, lost opportunities and avoid them if possible and necessary because the risk is that Islam is based on the Islamic states in particular and generally on other Muslims that corruption in any way possible to resolve the matter in. . all our problems of Israel. Israel of America. "
. . . Jurisprudential reasons for the Israeli military attack on Iran
. . .
Start with who you fight with God while they fight you, but the wicked [and primers] not because God does not love transgressors (Baqara 190) and where to find them and make them where you Bkshydshan Randhand drive, and the temptation to idolatry is worse than murder, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque, unless they are there with your campaign, and because the campaign Bkshydshan the reward of such unbelievers (Baqara 191)
Jihad
Jihad in the words of "JHD" means hardship and toil, or of "JHD" is meant to afford and tolerate in terms of effort and inconvenience in the way of God. Jihad in all aspects of economic, political, cultural and military, but can be explained solely using Jihad, Jihad's military Immediacy mind. Military jihad and the defense is divided into two basic types.
. . .

1 - Blood of Muslims to repel Israeli assault
As noted above, the purpose of repelling invasion defensive jihad against the enemies of Islam and Muslims and jihad is the primary goal of those who received the invitation to Islam and is considered the sufficiency imperatives, defensive jihad is obligatory objective.

In particular the Imam Khomeini (RA) described in the 2826 Manual states:
"If the enemy should invade the blood of Muslims and its borders, it is obligatory upon the Muslim masses every means possible to defend the lives and property of the give-away. And it does not need the permission of the judge."

. . .
With regard to Israel's aggression fake state of Palestine as part of the blood and includes the first Qibla of Muslims, to defend the sacred part of the blood of Muslims and Islamic Flsytn every means possible is obligatory in which case the judge would not even need to leave.

2 - to deal with the Israeli invasions of Palestinian blood
Regardless of the Israeli aggression against Palestine and the Muslims as the land is clear and the heads of this regime have never been denied that this fake regime soda dominate other Islamic lands bordering on the head and in this way to develop an every day in the provision of Chinese dominance of different ways.

. . .

Hence and considering the issues concerning primary and expansionist jihad against the Zionist regime and the regime definitively fake blood for Islam and Islamic Jihad to attack Israel on the defensive on the whole Muslim world is the objective obligatory.

3 - fear of Israeli domination over the Islamic countries
Imam Khomeini (RA) the Muslims were invited to consciousness, and of foreign domination over the Muslims have been warned. His 2828 issue states:

"If the Islamic countries of the map is drawn the strangers who might fear that dominate the Islamic countries to find it, it is obligatory upon Muslims with every means possible, plan to take them, and prevent They influence their development. "
The first jihad attack "Blood" non-Muslims is the lack of blood and land of Israel and the occupied land of Palestine to take over. Israel in the Palestinian territory of the Muslim people as a cancer that plans are drawn into an Islamic country and fear that it will dominate the Islamic countries to find that it is obligatory upon Muslims with every means possible, the map throw them together, and to prevent the development of Israel's influence.

. . .
Iran can destroy Israel in less than 9 minutes
Sjyl the missiles from ballistic missiles is a departure from the atmosphere and the path to such a height into the atmosphere back with about 10 to 12 Mach (approximately 3400 to 4080 meters per second) by the flooding, which destroy it. For all existing air defense systems is impossible. It represents the country's progress in missile technology to achieve such an important achievement. The solid ink technology used in rocket propulsion in addition to desirable features, high storage life is also looking for these missiles.
. . .
In the name of Allah
Iran must attack Israel by 2014

The necessity of Israel annihilation in Imam Khomeini's view
"Today, the first Qibla of the Muslims has been occupied by Israel, a cancerous tumor for the Middle East. Today, Israel is causing division using all evil means. Every Muslim is obliged to equip themselves against Israel. For about 20 years, I have been warning about the danger of international Zionist, and right now its danger for all the liberation revolutions in the world and the recent Islamic revolution of Iran is not less than the past. I have already warned that the Israeli usurping government, with the aims which it is seeking for, is a great danger for Islam and all Muslim nations, and it is likely that if Muslims leave Israel alone, the opportunity could be lost and it may not be possible to stop them; and since the potential danger is facing the foundations of Islam, it is necessary for the Islamic governments in particular and other Muslims in general to remove this corrupting material by any means. All our troubles are due to Israel! And Israel results from America too.

Nice that the United States doesn't escape notice from these loonies.

More Evidence of Iranian Weakness - Threats to Gulf Oil Producers

Iranian bellicosity against its neighbors demonstrates further weakness in its strategic position. I previously discussed why the threats over closing the Straits of Hormuz showed Iran's weakness. Now, their threats against the Saudis and others over oil production show another pitfall for Iran. The threat:

Iran warned Gulf Arab oil producers against boosting production to offset any potential drop in Tehran’s crude exports in the event of an embargo affecting its oil sales, the latest salvo in the dispute between the West and the Islamic Republic over its nuclear program.

The comments by Iran’s OPEC governor, published Sunday, came as Saudi Arabia’s oil minister was quoted the same day denying that his country’s earlier pledges to boost output as needed to meet global demand was linked to a potential siphoning of Iranian crude from the market because of sanctions.

. . .

Mohammad Ali Khatibi, Iran’s OPEC governor, was quoted Sunday by the pro-reform Shargh newspaper as saying that attempts by Gulf nations to replace Iran’s output with their own would make them an “accomplice in further events.”

“These acts will not be considered friendly,” Mr. Khatibi said, adding that if the Arab producers “apply prudence and announce that they will not participate in replacing oil, then adventurist countries will not show interest” in the embargo.

Iran's threat is a de facto recognition that there is excess oil production capacity in the world beyond their ability to control. The Saudis appear to be backing down on their previously announced intention to keep prices low. Historically, the behavior of oil producing nations has been only loosely coupled with their announced intention. If I were the Saudis, I would not provoke the Iranians publicly, but would quietly boost production while denying that I was doing so. This makes political sense, because it allows the Saudis to appear not to be allying themselves with the west, while still undercutting the key threat to their existence, a nuclear armed Iran. As the Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States demonstrates, the Iranians and Saudis are already in a shadow war with each other.

Why are the Iranians getting so bellicose? I can only assume that they are desperate. The actions of a country on the verge of achieving tactical military superiority would not look like this. Assassinating nuclear scientists and sanctions seem to be having the desired effect. (Caveat: I don't know who is assassinating Iran's nuclear physicists, but they are dying in numbers and by means that point to assassination.)

Iran Displays its Weakness

Even dictators are politicians, who must win the support of key constituencies to remain in power; how else to explain the hold on power by such madmen as Kim Jong Il. Bret Stephens explained this best in this 2009 WSJ article.

Tyranny is a demanding and quintessentially human art, requiring, among its better practitioners, a discriminating nose for the weaknesses of others and a keen mind for how to exploit them to the fullest. The weaknesses of your own people—the sublimated terror of the masses; the petty ambitions of the cadres; the cravenness of your inner circle—you know only too well.

But a tyrant’s training is no less useful for the manipulation of free men. What keeps an abused and subjugated people in line is the constant fear that things could suddenly get dramatically worse, along with the sporadic hope that things might also get marginally better. So long as most people feel they have much to lose and something to gain, you will have them in your power.

Which brings me to Iran's recent threat to close the Straits of Hormuz to shipping if sanctions were imposed on its crude oil exports. While this may seem a replay of the sort of moves that Kim made famous, I think this is clearly a signal that the Iranian leaders are in a weak position. Kim's threats were aimed at parties who lacked the desire or the means to fully call his bluff, specifically China and South Korea. The Iranian threat directly impacts Obama's re-election prospects and he has the means, in the form of the U.S. Fifth Fleet, to do something about it.

Consider the bearded ones' positions. Despite years of work, they still seem a ways off from achieving their goal of building a nuclear warhead that can be delivered at a distance. Clearly the U.S. and/or Israeli campaign of sabotage and assassination has been successful in slowing their nuclear progress. It seems that the mullahs are in a race against time; they feel the need to fulfill their nuclear ambition to secure their base and to increase their popularity before popular discontent with their failing socialist economy causes the government's collapse. This is why the threat to close the Straits of Hormuz is so telling. It is an almost credible threat, but reveals that they are nervous about the impact of economic sanctions. From the CIA factbook on Iran:

Iran's economy is marked by an inefficient state sector, reliance on the oil sector, which provides the majority of government revenues, and statist policies, which create major distortions throughout the system. Private sector activity is typically limited to small-scale workshops, farming, and services. Price controls, subsidies, and other rigidities weigh down the economy, undermining the potential for private-sector-led growth. Significant informal market activity flourishes. The legislature in late 2009 passed President Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD's bill to reduce subsidies, particularly on food and energy. The bill would phase out subsidies - which benefit Iran's upper and middle classes the most - over three to five years and replace them with cash payments to Iran's lower classes. However, the start of the program was delayed repeatedly throughout 2010 over fears of public reaction to higher prices.

The dependency on oil revenue to buy domestic peace is clearly their weakness. Another significant weakness, not mentioned in the factbook, is that the Iranians import significant amounts of their gasoline, despite their oil production.

With regards to policy towards, Iran, it seems that the current one is probably the best plan. Use covert means to sabotage the program and delay its progress, and build a consensus on sanctions. We are in no position to threaten full scale war with Iran, nor would we want to do so if sanctions and sabotage can achieve our goals. The ayatollahs are deeply unpopular, starving them of the means to buy domestic support will bring them down.

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

Iranian Nukes - There Is No Deterrence

I didn't see tonight's GOP Presidential foreign policy debate, but a couple of quotes caught my attention. First, I have to applaud Perry for his position that we should reset foreign aid to zero, and not give any to uncooperative nations. Second, I was disturbed about the zeal of some of the candidates for going to war to prevent Iranian possession of nukes. To be clear, this was discussed as a last resort, but is still a bad idea, regardless. The threat of war is normally considered a deterrent, but, to paraphrase Israel Kasnett, deterrence only works when one's opponents have rational self-interest. However, Iranians leaders desire war with the west as a way to hasten the return of the 12th Madi.

The basic tenet of deterrence is built on a foundation of rational decision making by both sides – a capacity which Iran lacks.

So what is to be done? I think a policy of deliberate de-escalation on the part of the United States, coupled with a publicity campaign that makes it clear to the Iranian people that their leaders are endangering the safety of their people. Ultimately, we are going to have to play a subtle game, because public breast beating and escalation of tensions plays into Iranian desires. Newt, who thinks himself very clever, has apparently not thought this through. My opinion is that the Iranians are counting on the Israelis being the ones who will take action. However, the Saudis are probably the nation most threatened by Iranian nuclear ambitions. This is because the Saudis control Muslim's holiest cities and are the chief expositors of Sunni theology, which relegates the Shiite Persians to second class status. As this threat becomes more real the potential to pick up allies in the Middle East increases. However, early unilateral action allows the Saudis and others to sit on their hands and blame us for being Islamophobic.

If the Iranians only have a few nukes initially, they aren't going to target a nation with BMD defenses and potentially wasted their one invaluable resource, getting all of the downside associated with a strike, but none of the upside.

Let's be clear, the Iranians may end up launching a nuke, where it might land and whether it would detonate are open questions. As regrettable as that might be, we may have to wait and use that opportunity to reshape the world. I don't think the Iranian people are going to be too happy with a regime that puts them at risk.

Dealing with Iran

If there is one thing I know about bullies, the only thing they respect is one's ability to hit them back. I think this applies especially to Iran. The military dictatorship there has calculated that America has no appetite for military engagement with Iran, so they move blithely forward on their nuclear weapons program, occasionally offering the prospects of negotiation to forestall the unpleasantness of tougher sanctions. In the meantime, the Obama administration started its relationship with the Iranians on the assumption that the President's oratory would leave the Iranian leadership so spell bound that there would be serious negotiations on the issue of nuclear weapons. We know how that worked out.

A little analysis of the self interest of the leadership is in order. First, Iran has turned into a military dictatorship. Order is maintained by Hezbollah thugs imported from Syria and Lebanon, suggesting the regime is fundamentally weak, because it is unpopular. In the same linked article, Michael Ledeen points out the inability of the regime to turn out to celebrate the anniversary of the death of Ayatollah Khomeini. From history we know that such regimes use foreign adventures and war to maintain popularity at home. Here is where the nuclear program comes in. First, by bringing the regime into sharp conflict with the United States, it shores up its own legitimacy. Iranians may loathe Ahmadinejad, but they also remember that the U.S. propped up the Shah. Second, if they were to obtain nuclear weapons, it would give them much greater freedom of action in the middle east. Their adversaries and the U.S. would have to add the risk of nuclear war to the calculus of confronting Iran. I am not convinced they would attack Israel, except as a last resort; unfortunately, I contemplate a future that includes last resorts for this brutal regime.

I frankly don't know what the latest sanctions that been proposed for Iran to deter them are. I don't care, because unless they stop the flow of dollars for oil, or prevent Iran from importing gasoline, they will have little effect. We aren't going to war either, certainly not under this President; but I never thought that a prudent course of action anyway.

What we could do, however, is to hit back in a way that threatens the existence of the regime. From a Washington Post editorial (of all places):

But as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) pointed out in a powerful speech before the group also on Thursday, the president has hesitated to "unleash America's full moral power to support the Iranian people." Mr. Obama clings to the hope that the radical clique in Tehran will eventually agree to negotiate in good faith -- "an assumption," Mr. McCain noted, that "seems totally at odds with the character of this Iranian regime."

The senator proposed "a different goal: to mobilize our friends and allies in like-minded countries, both in the public sphere and the private sector, to challenge the legitimacy of this Iranian regime, and to support Iran's people in changing the character of their government -- peacefully, politically, on their own terms and in their own ways."

I think there are some other things to be done. The same editorial discusses monies appropriated to help Iranians bypass the censors' firewalls, but of course our State Department has not spent that money. We can step up broadcasts from opponents of the regime, including over satellite. We can buy time on Persian language radio in Los Angeles, which is widely listened to Iran. Most importantly, we need to continue to show ordinary Iranians what an embarrassment Ahmadinejad is. Letting him address the U.N. and Universities should not be seen as a move for ourselves, but as playing to the Iranian public. Ethnic Persians make up the majority of Iran's population. They have a long and proud history as a people and a civilization. The current regime embarrasses them by its buffoonery and the use of foreigners to suppress dissent. Ridicule against this regime and providing practical help to the opposition is our best bet to defuse the current nuclear program.

Will the opposition wish to end the nuclear program? It is not guaranteed, but I guarantee you that the military dictatorship will not. Possessing nuclear weapons is not in the best interests of the Iranian people, who would gain no benefit from them and would incur considerable risk. If true democracy came to Iran, I believe that their leaders would come to believe that as well.

Sean Hannity Nukes Himself

As I feared, Sean Hannity led his show tonight with an hysterical over the top criticism of Obama's recently announced nuclear weapons policy. He also managed to drag the usually more thoughtful Newt Gingrich into the mix, declaring the latest Presidential announcement evidence that Obama is "dangerous." It was as if all they knew about the case was the Drudge headline. Perhaps they suffer from Obama derangement syndrome.

The New York Times has a pretty decent piece on the thinking of the administration in announcing the new policy, and as I suspected yesterday, it is aimed primarily at North Korea and Iran. But the Times thinks the policy may be intended to influence the leadership, I doubt that it will have any effect on them. However, the people of Iran may be a different story. For those inclined to be disenchanted with the regime, the fact that Iran's nuclear program puts them in the cross hairs of a large nuclear arsenal may give extra energy to their opposition. In the long run, only regime change in Iran is going to produce lasting peace in the region. I hold out hope that the people of Iran will eventually topple a regime that is so antithetical to any aspirations of better material conditions.

The one part of the new policy that I disagree with is the decision not to develop any new nuclear weapons. New weapons designed to burrow deep into underground bunkers are needed to disrupt the nuke/chem/bio development capacity of rogue states. A credible threat to be able to shut down their programs is a necessary piece of nuclear deterrence.

Slate does a good job of explaining the issues as well.

Another Reminder of the Thuggish Nature of Iran's Rulers

In a bold move that I'm sure the too-clever-by-half mad caps that rule Iran thought would win sympathy on the home front, an Iranian nuclear physicist, Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, who also happened to be a critic of the regime. The regime of course, has claimed it is all part of the Anglo-American-Israeli triangle of evil to bring there weapons program to a halt. Here is a quote from the article quoting Ahmadenijad:

"Kidnapping and assassination are scenarios of a joint conspiracy against the nation of Iran," said Ahmadinejad, according to the hard-line Fars news agency. "On the one hand, the espionage and intelligence agents of the American government kidnap a number of Iranian nationals in third-party countries and transfer them to America, and on the other hand, their treasonous agents inside Iran assassinate an intellectual citizen."

Eloquent to the end. File photo of Massoud Ali-Mohammadi below.

Iran and Nukes - How Can We Trust the Intelligence?

HotAir tipped me to a New York Times piece about Iran's nuclear program and the fact that "Mr. Obama’s top advisers say they no longer believe the key finding of a much disputed National Intelligence Estimate about Iran." This much ballyhooed estimate said that Iran had stopped work on their nuke program in 2003. The information was certainly not credible at the time and has since been debunked.

After reviewing new documents that have leaked out of Iran and debriefing defectors lured to the West, Mr. Obama’s advisers say they believe the work on weapons design is continuing on a smaller scale — the same assessment reached by Britain, France, Germany and Israel.

However, now the article intimates that the Iranians are farther away from producing a nuclear warhead than previously thought. Huh??? Let me get this straight, the previous official report said that Iranians were not even working on nukes, now the intelligence sources are saying, don't worry, give sanctions a chance, they aren't as close as we thought.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of this really matters. The real race is whether the current regime will fall because of its despotism vs. whatever the real time line is to get the nuclear bombs made. If Western intelligence agencies are really having success sabotaging the Iranian effort, great, but I just can't trust their public pronouncements.

The best course of action would be to take steps to encourage regime change in Iran, which Obama has shown little willingness to do. Until recently, he has done little to encourage the protesters and botched opportunities to showcase the last Iranian Presidential election for the sham it was. We should now view sanctions not in the light of whether they will influence the mullahs to give up on their nuke program, they will not; but in the light of whether the economic impact will destabilize the regime, which I do not know. Certainly any sanctions will be used by the despots to convince the public that "The Great Satan" is behind their woes, but they have played that card so many times, it may lack effectiveness.

More realistically, we should plan for a more pessimistic but likely outcome. The Iranians produce a bomb, because we can't really stop them. The Israelis retaliate or the Iranians use the first bomb they produce. Either way, we need to get allies lined up and our own propaganda readied, because there will be hell to pay in the Middle East. Tragic as that would be, I don't see the Iranian regime surviving making first use of a nuke and we need to keep the long run in mind. I am not being cavalier at the prospect of tens of thousands of deaths, just realistic. Unfortunately, the administration has shown itself to be incredibly naive to date, and I doubt they are prepared.

Nuclear Politics Update

Little reported until this morning, the US Navy is tracking a North Korean ship bound for Singapore or Myanmar. It is believed the ship is carrying banned material, like missile parts, that earn the Norks hard currency. In an earlier post, I opined as how denying Kim Jong Il hard currency is the best leverage we have to influence his behavior on the nuke issue. I am waiting to see how the current administration handles the situation. They have been getting quite an education lately between Iranian electoral shenanigans and North Korean nuclear sabre rattling. Let's hope they are fast learners. As usual, Information Dissemination has excellent in depth naval analysis. They also believe that Kim Jong Il will not last without Chinese support and have reason to believe that Chinese support for "the little perv" as Dean called him, is eroding.

Interestingly, Information Dissemination linked to this scholarly mathematical analysis showing that the Iranian election results were almost certainly fraudulent (99.6% likely to have been faked). This is important, because the nuclear hard line taken by Ahmedinejad is certainly not in the best interests of the people of Iran. This will dawn on them as events unfold; posessing nuclear weapons means you can also be on the receiving end of nuclear weapons. A move to true democracy won't make Iran our new BFF, but will result in a regime more amenable to listening to reason on the nuke issue.

Nuclear Politics

The threat of nuclear war has never been greater than it is today. During the height of the cold war, we were much further away from the possibility, because we could count on the Soviets (Russians) to act rationally. Not so with the jokers pictured here. Both Iran and North Korea appear to be moving steadily towards a limited nuclear capability, that is, the ability to put a nuclear warhead on a medium range missile. There is little that America can do to stop this directly.

However, we need to prepare for the eventuality of their use by these madmen. Samuel Johnson is quoted as saying "Nothing more wonderfully concentrates a man's mind than the sure knowledge he is to be hanged in the morning." We need to use this fact to our advantage. It is little known nor appreciated that until Iran possesses nuclear weapons, the U.S. is forbidden by treaty from using nukes against them. This came up in the Iraq war, where some people thought we would respond with nukes if Saddam used chemical or biological weapons. We would not have, because Iraq was a signatory on the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and we did not know if they possessed nuclear weapons. North Korea has withdrawn from the treaty, so they are a different case. The differing status of the two nations calls for different approaches to dealing with their ambitions.

First Iran. It is a blessing in disguise that Ahmedinejad won or stole the Iranian election. Iran is really run by the mullahs, and the policy to obtain nukes was not about to change, no matter who won, but now no one can argue about the basic nature of the regime, unless your a Daily Kook. Further, Ahmedinejad hasn't had quite enough time to fully wreck the Iranian economy with his socialist policies. Ultimately, only the people of Iran can through off the yoke of Islamic Socialism. Our approach to Iran needs to be non-provocative, so that we don't feed the propaganda machine of the regime. I know that they will manufacture propaganda, like the good fascists they are, but Iranians are surprisingly able to obtain other sources of news, from Persian language stations in LA for example. Our non-provacative stance will help. But we need to make clear to the people of Iran the true consequences of the path their leadership has put on them on. Right now, they are free from the threat of nuclear retaliation; when the mullahs launch a nuke missile, they face the possibilty of death due to very high temperatures. I think the trajectory of the current regime is inexorably downward, as the young and middle class especially loathe the lack of freedom in the Islamic paradise.

North Korea is a whole different problem. We can never expect the people to rise up, they are starving and can barely perform the basic functions of life. Further, they have no knowledge of the outside world. However, Kim Jong Il plays his little games at the sufferance of China. Right now, it amuses them to watch him threaten the hated Japanese. However, we need to make clear to the Chinese the inherent instability of the situation and our resolve to respond with nukes if the Norks use theirs. Such a retaliation would bring nuclear warheads and fallout uncomfortably close to the Chinese border. I don't think they are going to be too happy with that outcome once they think it through. The other way to influence Kim Jong Il is to remove his access to hard currency. Kim clearly enjoys the finer things that the West produces, so denying him hard currency hits him where he lives. For a while, the U.S. had an effective policy to limit North Korea's criminal enterprises of counterfeiting, cigarettes and currency, drug traficking and sales of missiles. Bringing back this policy and making it explicitly linked to Kim standing down from weaponizing plutonium is also required.

Will any of this work? I am not sure, but I believe a pre-emptive strike is off the table for now, so these are the options available.