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.

No Nukes? No Way!

The Drudgereport has what seems to be a disturbing headline:

NO NUKES: EVEN IN SELF-DEFENSE!

implying a change in policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons. From the linked New York Times article:

For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

I beg to differ, and I have some personal knowledge of this subject. First, we will still use nukes against anyone who uses nukes against us, so we aren't giving up nukes in self defense. Further, the non-retaliation with nukes has been the policy of the United States for a long time; because the language of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NNPT) requires this. The treaty makes no mention of an exception to its precepts with regards to biological or chemical weapons. Perhaps it is news because we announced this publicly, but it is not really a change. I hope conservative commentators don't get worked up and display their ignorance (I'm thinking Sean Hannity).

HotAir has some reasoned debate, good for them. When you think about the countries that worry us over chem/bio (Iran, North Korea), they are probably also the countries who are in actual or technical violation of the NNPT, so if they use chem/bio weapons we are still free to turn rain some mushroom clouds on their critical military infrastructure.

24 Empty Missile Tubes, a Mushroom Cloud, Now, it's Miller Time!

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.