A US attack on Iran?

I’ve speculated over the past year about the prospects of the US going to war with Iran. The Economist this week thinks there are good reasons for supposing it might happen despite the US defence secretary’s claim February 2 that ‘We are not planning for a war with Iran’. They advance four reasons.

• Iran's apparent determination to build nuclear weapons, and a fear that it is nearing the point where its nuclear programme will be impossible to stop (see here).
• The advent of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a populist president who denies the Holocaust and calls openly for Israel's destruction: his apocalyptic speeches have convinced many people in Israel and America that the world is facing a new Hitler with genocidal intent.
• A recent tendency inside the Bush administration to blame Iran for many of America's troubles not just in Iraq (see here) but throughout the Middle East.
• The predicament of George Bush. ‘A president who is now detached from electoral considerations knows that his place in history is going to be defined by the tests he himself chose to put at the centre of his foreign policy: bringing democracy to the Middle East and preventing rogue regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Given his excessive willingness to blame Iran for blocking America's noble aims in the Middle East, he may come to see a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear programme as a fitting way to redeem his presidency’.

The Economist regards a US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities as a reckless gamble that would at best delay not end Iranian nuclear ambitions:

‘It might very well rally support behind a regime that is at present not conspicuously popular at home, emboldening it to retaliate inside Iraq, against Israel and perhaps against the US itself. Besides, it is far from clear exactly how dangerous a nuclear-armed Iran would be. Unlike Iraq under Saddam, Iran has a complex power structure with elements of pluralism and many checks and balances. For all its proclaimed religiosity, it has behaved since the revolution like a rational actor. To be sure, some of its regional aims are mischievous, and in pursuing them it has adopted foul means, including terrorism. But the ayatollahs have so far been shrewd calculators of consequences. There are already small signs of a backlash against the attention-seeking Mr Ahmadinejad. Like the Soviet Union, a nuclear Iran could probably be deterred’.

This is not to say a nuclear Iran isn’t dangerous – it is. Iran's nuclear efforts might, for example, provoke a pre-emptive strike by Israel, which is already a nuclear power.

‘For Israelis, whose country Mr Ahmadinejad says he wants to wipe off the map, it is not all that reassuring to hear that Iran can “probably” be deterred. Even if Israel were to decide against such a strike, Iran's going nuclear could destroy what is left of the international non-proliferation regime. It has proved hard enough for Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia to live with Israel's undeclared bomb; if their Iranian rival got one too, the race to copy might soon be on. On top of this is the danger that a nuclear Iran would feel safe to ramp up attempts to spread its revolution violently beyond its own borders’.

Every effort should be made to stop an Iranian bomb. But a better way than an armed strike is to encourage the talks between Britain, France and Germany and Iran rather than to bludgeon Iran into nuclear compliance. Iran claims its nuclear programme is for civil purposes only so last year, the Europeans called its bluff by offering trade, civil-nuclear assistance and a promise of talks with America if it stopped enriching the uranium that could produce the fuel for a bomb. When Iran refused, diplomacy led in December to economic sanctions by the Security Council.

This is a promising approach. The diplomacy at the UN proceeds at a glacial pace. But Iran is thought to be several years from a bomb. And meanwhile the Americans, Europeans, Russians and Chinese have at last all lined up on the same side of the argument. What is required now is a further tightening of the economic squeeze coupled with some sort of an incentive—most usefully an unambiguous promise from Mr Bush that if Iran returns to compliance with the nuclear rules it will face no attempt by America to overthrow the regime. Even then, America and Iran may be fated to lock horns in the Middle East. But the region, and the world, will be a good deal safer without the shadow of an Iranian bomb’.

Meanwhile Paul Krugman also agrees that what would be a disastrous attack on Iran is increasingly likely – he describes this as the Scary Movie 2 possibility.

Defeating Iran

A short though insightful discussion of Iran's contribution to the current Middle East horrors is provided by Leanne Piggott. She sees the current conflict between Israel and Iran's proxy in Lebanon (Hezbollah) as an event that could transform global politics for a generation.

Iran is seeking a regional hegemony in the Middle East and is led by a man (Mahmood) who wants to destror Israel. Iran probably planned the Hezbollah incursion into Israel to derail the UN Security Council's scheduled meetings this week to deal with its refusal to allow monitoring of its nuclear facilities. The Security Council is in a position to impose sanctions for this failure.

Iran does seek nuclear weapons (its claims to the contrary are lies):

Just before the IAEA meeting last February, Iran's state-run news agency, Fars, reported that Iran requires nuclear weapons as a "means to create a balance in the arrangement of forces in the region". In talks with European officials concerning Iran's nuclear program, the regime's negotiators have consistently stated that Iran will not curb its nuclear work, and have threatened to destabilise the region if the matter is returned to the Security Council. (my bold).

The most recent Iranian threat was made on July 11, the eve of Hezbollah's attack on Israel.

But maybe Iran has overplayed its hand. Much of the Arab world seems alarmed by Iran's imperrial objectives and a US-Israeli airstrike against Iran's nuclear facilities cannot be ruled out - it may be the only way of eventually dealing with this preposterous terrorist state. Moreover, opposition to Ian's nuclear stance from internal Iranian groups such as the People's Mojahedrin Organisation of Iran and the broader coalition of resistance groups to which the PMOI belong, the National Council of Resistance of Iran deserve, according to Piggott, Western support. There are even strong conflicts within Iranian non-resistance politics to the path Mahmood is pursuing. These too should be encouraged.

Iran is being confronted with resistance in the conflicts it is encouraging among the Palestinians, in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the Arab world is sensing Iran's imperialistic objectives. Internal opposition can be encouraged within Iran can be encouraged to divert Iran from its current program of hostilities without more blood being shed. There is no reasonable argument that Iran can be permitted to possess nuclear weapons and there are strategies to defeat Iran.

Mad Mahmoud

The fanaticism of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (MA) embrace of martyrdom creates difficulties in resolving tensions between Iran and the rest of the world over its use of nuclear technology. Mahmoud’s willingness to accept many potential Iranian deaths, and his hatred for Israel and the United States, mean that policy responses to prevent him from acquiring nuclear weapons are likely to end up involving a military intervention that will ultimately not be a ‘limited’ attack.

Almost all countries oppose Iranian development of nuclear enrichment technology - though Russia is curiously opposing UN sanctions and is continuing with a planned sale of missiles to the Iranians. It is difficult to believe that Iran seeks nuclear power for peaceful purposes. In any event their successful development would hasten a nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East that could have globally catastrophic implications. And it is plain silly to assume that Iran has no malevolent intentions towards Israel.

A chilling story by Matthias Küntzel in The New Republic here (reprinted in today’s Weekend Australian) explains the background to the intransigent Iranian position.

President Mahmoud was an instructor in the Basiji Mostazafan during the Iran-Iraq war. This was the volunteer militia that sent young adolescent men in almost unarmed ‘human wave’ attacks against Iraq where they were slaughtered in droves. Sometimes the tactics worked because the Iraqi opposition refused to kill such innocents but mostly they were slaughtered. The Basiji experienced no fear of death since, their faith in one of the founding myths of Shia Islam, glorified death. Death, by helping to vanquish evil, help provide a precondition for the return of the 12th Imam who will establish paradise on earth under universal Islamic Law. We can all hardly wait! The Basiji glorify mass death and, since 2004, have trained an estimated 52,000 members of suicide brigades for suicide in foreign countries.

After Mahmoud’s election he stated ‘Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr’s death?’ This makes Mahmoud a dangerous terrorist leader. In a nuclear war with Israel the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iranians would be of little consequence to Mahmoud if Israel could be wiped off the face of the earth and the arrival of the new Imam hastened.

This message appeals to the poor in Iran who are having a difficult time. The Iranian economy is weak, overregulated with a huge public sector, with over 40% of the population living in poverty and almost completely dependent on oil exports. The narky message of the fanatical Mahmoud to Iran’s poor who, incidentally, identify nuclear power with progress.

Küntzel writes, ‘The history of the Basiji shows that we must expect monstrosities from the current Iranian regime’. Indeed Timothy Ash predicts a massive wave of attacks on foreign targets should the US bomb Iran. Tim Blair shocks by responding – ‘Better take out the whole country, then’. But that is the logical implication of the current mindset in Iran for US policy with respect to a military intervention there. Half-measures would be costly for the US since strong retaliation will be expected unless Iran is severely damaged by a US attack.

A paper from the American Enterprise Institute argues that the Iranian mullahs don’t really want war. The reasoning - if they really wanted it they would not broadcast their nuclear technology successes so loudly. What they do get from such broadcasts are higher oil prices, lots of publicity that is attractive to fanatics in their own society and even offers from European nations to protect the mullahs themselves from a US attack and even from attack by their own nationals.

Is this theory plausible? Are the mullahs making empty threats of the type made famous by Saddam Hussein. If so it’s a dangerous escalation game. But what seems more plausible to me is that evoking a hostile response from the US and its allies helps provide the Iranian leadership with a way of garnering mass support from the poor of Iran. It’s a completely cynical exercise since it is these people who will pay the main price.

The Europeans and the Russians must support strong moves by the US to limit Iran’s nuclear program and get rid of Mahmoud. Strong support for the US now will help avoid costly future military options.

Iran remains a threat

Melanie Phillips dumps on a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report that guesses Iran stopped its attempt to produce nuclear weapons in 2003. Israel doesn't believe the report and others suggest it might reflect a deal done with Iran whereby the US agrees not to bomb it provided Iran stops assistance for terrorism in Iraq. This type of deal leaves Israel out in the cold completely.

Nor does the International Atomic Energy Agency agree completely with the report.

Indeed, the NIE report itself offers only a qualified view: ‘Iran's civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing.’ Such a ‘civilian’ program could be converted speedily and stealthily to military use. As the new NIE notes, ‘Iran has the scientific, technical, and industrial capacity to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.’

Iran is laughing – Mahmoud is declaring a ‘great victory’. It is a propaganda victory that builds on the back of the WMD fiasco and subsequent US problems in Iraq. It is foolish to believe that an agency, which has provided flawed intelligence in the past, has got it right this time.

Moreover, the report's qualifications about Iran’s ability to switch to pursuing a nuclear option should be kept in mind. President Bush and International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Mohamed ElBaradei have been cautious and have urged Iran to clarify its nuclear intentions further. Iran remains a threat.

Weekend reflections

A freezing cold day in Melbourne today. After taking my son to a music lesson I spent the rest of the day reading the Weekend Australian and the biography of Harry Harlow, Love at Goon Park by Deborah Blum. During Harlow’s life the ‘animal rights’ movement didn’t have much of an impact so the sorts of criticisms I discussed in an earlier post were not relevant. It was his pioneering work as a psychologist in understanding the ‘science of affection’ (‘love’) that stand out. Harlow was a curious, cranky, imperfect human being who was obviously quite brilliant.

The newspapers today had some excellent articles on the conflict between Israel and Iran’s representatives in Lebanon. The initial killings and murders by Hezbollah were clearly designed to initiate a conflict that had been long planned and engineered by Iran. Hezbollah has got the outcome it wants and the unfortunate people of Lebanon are paying a terrible price. The Australian’s editorial says it all – Israel’s foes must understand that Israel will defend its existence. The article by Alan Dershowitz ‘When innocents are in the firing in’ makes the point that Hezbollah launch anti-personnel rockets from heavily-populated civilian areas seeking Israeli death gains and propaganda gains from Israeli responses which fall on civilians. The chorus of condemnation of Israel then serves the terrorist interest.

Israel is planning a limited ground offensive in Lebanon to weaken Hezbollah and presumably to attempt to provide strength to the Lebanese Government. The latter has said it will fight alongside Hezbollah against the Israelis (it has mentioned previously trying to disarm Hezbollah) so it is unclear what will happen. Israel’s objective is obviously to inflict heavy damage on Hezbollah that will weaken Iran’s capacity to operate via proxy in Lebanon.

Finally, I noticed via several blogs that the neocon William Kristol advocates the US attacking Iran now. Writing of Hezbollah’s Iranian-backed fight with Israel:

‘…..For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be epercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement’.

Paul Krugman ridicules this notion but argues this is probably driving current official US thinking. If it is driving US thinking it islikely that the US would be behaving now just as it is. It is giving Israel time to clean up Hezbollah strongholds in Lebanon, then nominally seeking a negotiated settlement by sending Dr Rice to end that conflict and then suddenly striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. The US must now be thinking about how this type of conflict would be played out if Iran had nuclear weapons. He must also be thinking that a peace deal which leaves Hezbollah intact and leaving Iran and Syria in their current strategic position will be almost worthless – some short-term gains in reduced civilian casualties but the type of problems being experienced now repeating as the terrorists regroup.

The US have already speeded up the delivery of refined missiles to Israel. Meanwhile savage critiques of the neocon 'attack Iran' position are being posted.

Fairly gloomy thoughts on a gloomy Saturday. If you have anything brighter to contribute I would welcome hearing about it. Feel free to contribute your views on anything.

A bet: Will the US or Israel attack Iran?

The gambling service, Intrade, forecast about a 33% chance that Israel or the US will attack Iran's nuclear facilities before March 2007: see Intrade

If you invest $1 you will have roughly $3 returned to you should an attack occur.

The odds here were much shorter a few weeks ago. Perhaps there has been some effect of the offer by China and the United States, made a couple of weeks back, to agree to allow Iran to use nuclear fuels provided these were enriched in Russia. The Iranians themselves have not rejected the deal but seem lukewarm towards it.

Nevertheless the gambling markets still see a reasonably high probability of action - they are forecasting the US/Israel remain reasonably likely to strike. I am interested in these types of betting markets and will watch what happens to this one as the year unfolds.

My own view is that allowing Iran to gain access to nuclear weapons would be dangerous, I do not believe that the Iranians are seeking nuclear power for energy purposes alone. If Iran possessed weapons, other fanatical Middle East regimes would follow suit. Indeed nuclear non-proliferation, globally, would likely break down completely. Then the major sources of the world's oil supplies would be subject to nuclear 'protection'. It would be a recipe for creating serious conflict.

Update: The odds might well shorten as the Iranian PM announced today that the proposal to buy enriched uranium from elsewhere would leave Iran open to limitations in supply. Iran has further indicated that it might follow North Korea and abandon the nonproliferation treaty.
American officials and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency have said that the treaty provision allowing countries to renounce it, with 90 days' notice, constitutes a major flaw in the effort to keep nations from becoming nuclear powers. Countries can endorse the treaty then abandon it on short-term notice and began making weapons once it is abandoned.

Update: The price shortened again this morning by a couple of points as Britain's Sunday Times reported the US had drawn up firm plans to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities with deep bunker-destroying bombing raids supported by missile attacks from submarine. See here.

Hezbollah unloved

It is obvious that the activities of Hezbollah are causing divisions in the Arab world. Many countries condemn the adventurism of Hezbollah outright while only a few support it.

Saudi Arabia has condemned Hezbollah for the kidnappings while Egyptian politicians are clearly concerned that Israel’s raids on southern Lebanon will boost support for Hezbollah and their fanatical supporters in Teheran. With the exception of the Palestinians the Arab countries are united in blaming Iran and Syria for the fighting in Lebanon. One general spin is that many Arab countries see the current conflict as thwarting the ambitions of the religious crazies in Iran with the bonus that the weight of this effort is being borne by equally unloved Israel. Many of these countries would like to see Hezbollah, as the Iran’s branch office on the Mediterranean, cop it in the neck.

The Iranian and Syrian leaders are in part using Hezbullah to divert attention from Iran's nuclear program and Syria's involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The Iranians are not Arabs and Iran is backing Shia groups in Iraq who seek to turn Iraq into an Iranian ally – the Sunnis in Iraq increasingly want the Americans to stick around. The Islamic paradises in Iran, Sudan and Afghanistan don’t look attractive to anyone in the Western world but also look repugnant to non-fanatical Muslims everywhere – the barbarism of the Iranian regime is getting and deserves universal condemnation. Moreover, Iran wishes to secure nuclear weapons and attack Israel. If it did so – or threatened to do so – much ‘collateral damage’ would fall on surrounding Arab states. This is presumably an extra inducement for Arabs to hope Hezbollah will cop it in the neck.

Hezbollah in Lebanon may rally more troops behind its ratbag causes or may face isolation and ultimate annihilation there because of its instrumental role in bringing catastrophe on this long-suffering nation. Israel will work towards achieving the latter view. It is no better than anyone else at resolving moral ambiguities but it is far better than any Arab country at winning wars.

US to talk to Iran on Iraq

The US has done an about face and endorsed a key suggestion of the Baker-Hamilton report that it talk to Iran regarding the instabilities in Iraq. According to The Economist the US will join in regional talks (Iran and Syria included) in Bhagdad on the security situation in Iraq. The US has abandoned its insistence that Iran constrain its nuclear developments as a precondition for talks.

The Economist is vague on the reasons for the US change of heart but suspects it might reflect a gradually improving security situation in Bhagdad as the 'surge' in US troop numbers impacts. The pressures imposed on Iran via a threatening US military posture and increased troop commitments in Afghanistan (which increase pressures on the 'other side' of Iran) put the US in a position of greater power and plausibly make it more interested in bargaining.

Whatever the reasons there is little to lose in talking.

Attacking Iran?

Does the US seek to attack Iran as Salon believes?

Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.

Intrade will now pay more if Israel or the US launch a strike before 30 March 2007 than they would 6 weeks ago. So if you were indifferent then, and believe the Salon story, place your bets.

The Salon article analyses the likelihood of attack, the plausible form of the attack and provides pessimistic assessment of the military and strategic costs the Americans will face. Spectator argues that Iran already has missile technology that will carry nuclear warheads into Europe.

Update: The BBC report that Iran dismisses the prospect of an attack as 'psychological warfare' while the UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Staw, sees no basis for the claim. Again the BBC report President Bush dismisses as speculation that a nuclear attack on the nuclear faciities in Iran might occur. The Iranians counter that US 'news' of a possible attack is 'psychological warfare' - that if the US were going to attack it would not be pre-announced.

(Thanks Rabee for the Salon reference).

Iraq war escalation

I thought George Bush made a good speech on the Iraq situation. He admitted strategic mistakes and addressed the problems caused by support for terrorist factions in Iraq by Syria and Iran – the Arab press see these comments as an indication that war against Iran is imminent and they might be right. The Iranians cannot be allowed to possess nuclear weapons and dominate the region. Bush resolved to put more effort into dealing with civilian security, particularly in Baghdad, and to put pressure on Prime Minister al-Maliki to restrain the Mahdi Army sponsored by his patron Moqtada al-Sadr and by Iran.

In the end I think Bush’s current judgment – and that of John Howard – is correct. Allowing barbarous thugs, with avowedly anti-western aims, to win in Iraq and to impose their particular brand of sectarian tyranny on Iraq is too costly an outcome - too costly for Iraqis and for the West.

On the other hand with only an additional 21,000 troops the obvious question is, as The Australian editorializes, whether a substantive change in outcomes is likely. The increased troop commitments are anything but a ‘troop surge’ – they are an escalation and one that might be part of a broader strategy in the region to deal with Iran. The cost of the conflict has already been massive for all concerned and the power of the murderous militias is unrelenting. If the terrorist factions in Iraq make the judgment that the increase in troop numbers is only a temporary palliative, until the next US President is elected and withdraws US forces, expectations will drive a self-fulfilling US defeat.

US policy on Iraq must be all-or-nothing. Either withdraw completely or provide enough troops to maintain civil order.

I thought the Aussie blogs would say something about Bush’s speech so I had a quick look around. Most said very little – a survey of the standard leftwing blogs is here. It’s for the most part a routine dismissal of Bush’s arguments - none of it addresses the issues at hand. The situation in Iraq is dire but this is not the time to whistle to the propaganda tune of Iran and the terrorists. I was similarly unimpressed by the points scoring of the Democrats in the US who similarly failed to address the issues raised by Bush.

Aside: By the way William Shawcross writes an interesting piece in The Australian suggesting current signs of improvement in Iraq’s economy.

Doubts about the ceasefire

Like Prime Minister John Howard I am pessimistic about the prospects for a durable peace in the Middle East on the basis of the current United Nations Resolution to end fighting tomorrow. The resolution, despite its complexity and length, is vague on the issue of disarming Hezbollah - the key to thwarting Iran's objectives in Lebanon.

The crux of the problem is that Hezbollah sees itself as gaining some sort of 'victory' over Israel in contrast to repeated past Arab failures. It sees itself as having been able able to sustain continued opposition to the military might of Israel. It may be that ordinary Lebanese returning to their shattered homes and a ruined economy may inject a sense of realism into Hezbollah's fantasies but the fear is that for many, hatred of Israel and celebration of this pyrrhic 'victory', fostered by the bearded religious fanatics in Iran, will turn this ceasefire into something only temporary.

This ceasefire will only provide a lasting peace if Hezbollah is disarmed and its military influence in Lebanon nullified. The real danger in the region is Hezbollah’s patron, Iran and specifically the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran. Iran seeks nuclear weapons and has repeatedly expressed the view that it will use such weapons on Israel. Their leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a fanatic who would see millions die to further his fanatical brand of Islam. Hezbollah's leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has similar goals - 'If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.' (NY Times, May 23, 2004, p. 15)

Even though he has brought devastation to Lebanon, Nasrallah is a much-admired men. His threats to the Jews parallel those of Hitler in Mein Kampf and he has a reputation for keeping his promises. Israel will see this more clearly than any country and Israel has nuclear weapons that it will use to ensure its survival.

It is in the interests of non-fanatical Arab countries, as well as Israel, to secure a durable peace. Like P.M. Howard I am unsure this UN resolution will do much.

What will Israel do?

Will Israel attack Iran and Syria? The greater than expected strength of Hezbollah attacks on Israeli cities like Haifa suggest that Israel (and perhaps the US) might seek to settle things more permanently. The Palestinians have voted for the terrorist Hamas while the most efficient branch of Middle East terrorism, Hezbollah, has broad support from Shia Lebanese, backed by Iran and Syria. Undemocratic states like Syria and Iran are attempting to subvert democracy throughout the Middle East by supporting, with military funding, those forces it sees as advancing its brand of Islamic fundamentalism.

Apart from Israel, Iran has the best equipped military forces in the region. Their strength can only grow and they are committed to wiping out Israel. Left unchecked Iran will develop nuclear weapons and may even provide them to terrorist groups in the region. These issues must be self-evident to all parties.

These same issues pose difficult immediate calculations for Israel and perhaps the United States. The moral arguments are all on Israel's side but these are largely irrelevant - the main consideration at present is whether decisive action at this stage would work or not.

Talking to Iran

I am puzzled as to why the US is so quick to reject even considering the letter from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and why there are not moves to initiate a dialogue with Iran. I am no supporter of Mad Mahmoud but doesn't refusing to even dialogue with him give MM the initiative. We tried to talk to the Americans but.....

I agree with Kevin Drum:

Iran has elected a wingnut president, they've made progress on nuclear enrichment, gained considerable influence in Iraq, and increased their global economic leverage as oil supplies have gotten tighter. So why blow another chance? If the talks fail, then they fail. But what possible reason can there be to refuse to even discuss things with Iran — unless you're trying to leave no alternative to war?

Sharper visions & the North Korean bomb

The global response to the North Korean nuclear test yesterday has been interesting. The fact of the test is of little practical consequence assuming no environmental damage. After all, it was widely-believed, prior to the test, that North Korea did have nuclear weapons.

But the test has had significant impacts in sharpening focus. China will now more clearly fear a nuclear arms race in the region centred on Japan. South Korea will more definitely understand that it cannot win over its fanatical neighbour with love and so on.

The issues that I gained increased focus on were:

(i) That a technologically-backward nation like North Korea can acquire nuclear weapons. Thus any country with the will to possess nuclear weapons can.
(ii) That North Korea's hatred of the US could lead to it supplying nuclear weapons to terrorist groups. This is a plausible, not a pessimistic, scenario. North Korea could blackmail the free world by threatening to supply terrorists with nukes.
(iii) The world should not stand by and allow Iran to mimic North Korea. Iran's leader has spoken of wiping Israel off the face of the earth should not possess nuclear weapons and will certainly be emboldened by the North Korean move.
(iv) That, as game theory suggests, for example in the 'game of chicken', an irrational opponent, like North Korea, can be a dangerous opponent. There is good reason to fear irrationality.

I suppose it is largely now minor and an issue of irrelevant sunk costs but that Dr A.Q. Khan, who supplied North Korea with nuclear weapons, is now peacefully living in Pakistan more than irritates me. Khan also sold nuclear technology to Libya and Iran. What a noble contribution to humanity from the 'father of the Pakistani nuclear industry'.

Federalising Iraq?

The Iraq Government has talked about it and now the American Congress seem prepared to embrace the idea: Iraq to be split up into three autonomous regions (Shia, Sunni and Kurd) to limit the potential for currently escalating sectarian conflict to spiral completely out of control with a phased US withdrawal. Given that the Kurds already have an autonomous region the split would mainly need to be designed to limit the potential for a devastating civil war with bloodbath between Sunni and Shia should the US leave – leaving seems to be sought by the majority of Iraqis and implicitly by the US also.

A civil war in Iraq would almost certainly involve increased intervention by Iran and increased instability throughout the Middle East because of fears of Iran’s increased regional role. Federalisation of Iraq looks inevitable anyway – the task is to achieve it with minimum bloodshed while at the same time limiting Iran's ability to expand its regional hegemony.

Israel the bully?

Israel seems to be heading towards all out war with Lebanon, Syria and even perhaps Iran after Shia-backed Hezbollah militants kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed seven others in a cross-border raid. This occurs on top of the kidnapping by Palestinians of Corporal Gilad Shalit by Hamas-alligned militants last month. Overnight Israel launched further air attacks both on Gaza (where they destroyed the Palestinian Foreign Ministry) and, along a second line of attack against Lebanon. In recent hours Israel has cut off air traffic into Beirut by a rocket attack on runways - it seems to have blockaded Lebanon. The conflict is becoming more serious by the hour.

Hezbollah is a state-sponsored terrorist group. Despite its cowardly denials, the main sponsor of this terrorism is Lebanon with auxiliary support provided by Syria and Iran. The deterrence principle discussed recently on this blog suggests that the threat of an overwhelming retaliation against these countries should have been enough to deter their aggression. It hasn’t worked.

Iran, Syria and Lebanon, as sworn enemies of the Jewish state, seek its destruction. Israel has a legitimate right to deny these forces the opportunity to wipe it out and to defend itself against jihadist terrorism. It is now under active attack on each of its three major land borders and Israel clearly sees current events as part of a regional conflict that goes beyond the kidnapping of 3 soldiers.

The deaths, injuries and property damage being suffered by the Palestinians are something that everyone can empathise with. Many of those killed or injured are innocent of terrorist involvement. But they (or their parents) did vote for Hamas – even when first elected the Israelis were concerned about its connections to terrorism.

I watched a biased TV report last night which emphasised the evils Israel is inflicting on innocent Palestinians. Innocents are indeed suffering but the reason for the suffering is the militant Hamas regime which launches missile attacks on Israel, kills its citizens and then runs and hides among its women and children and effectively turns its own citizens into hostages. When Israel responds to the outrages launched Hamas hysterics cry 'atrocity' in unison. Israel the ‘neighborhood bully’, being picked on by its neighbours on all sides and daring to assert its claim to be allowed to continue to exist.

Should be ashamed of itself? No, not at all. The only issue is whether the current strong response policy will work.

Bad uranium economics

Brian Toohey in the Weekend Australian Financial Review (subscription required) states that:

'Nuclear energy is more financially viable in countries without Australia's low cost coal and natural gas reserves'.

This argument seems fallacious. As Australia sells coal and gas in international markets they - as with the U3O8 they export - have an opportunity cost that equals their value in these markets less transport costs incurred exporting them.

The same fallacy arises when people say that Iran has no economic reasons to develop nuclear power because of its abundant oil reserves. Again the proximity of such reserves has nothing to do with the case for or against nuclear power since Iran is a major oil exporter.

There are non-economic reasons for me opposing Iran's shift to nuclear technologies that I have discussed on this blog. There are also reasons that I think Australia should keep an open mind about the nuclear option (here and here). But these are independent of the fallacious reasoning adopted by Toohey.

Toohey's also opposes nuclear power on grounds that:

'If advances in 'clean' coal technology for removing the problem of greenhouse gas emissions prove cost effective - which seems likely - there will be no compelling commercial or environmental reason to switch to nuclear'.

This argument is not supported with evidence but it is at least helpful in clarifying the debate. We need to try to understand whether such technologies will become commercially viable. This debate has a long way to run.

Pre-Announced US Exit from Iraq?

There is nothing like visible, extreme events to trigger off strong views. The past few murderous days in Iraq have John Quiggin arguing that, although a pullout of US troops from Iraq would be a disaster, there is no better option than to set an immediate timetable for a US withdrawal from Iraq sometime next year.

This is a more than a knee-jerk reaction however since it is also the current policy of the Australian Labor Party. But I just do not understand such views.

In his recent post, JQ is responding to, and rejecting, Lawrence Kaplan’s claim, in NRO, that there is a case for staying in Iraq and for abandining the current implicit drift in US policy that supports cutting-and-running. JQ argues, instead, that as the US will not commit troops necessary to make Kaplan’s proposal work, the best option is to preannounce a withdrawal. But, if one believes withdrawal will be a disaster for Iraq, better policies are for current troop deployment numbers to remain or, at least, to express a verbal commitment to maintain the commitment as PM Howard has done, prior to any eventual reduction. How can pre-announcing a cut-and-run policy improve the situation in Iraq when much of the current conflict reflects sectarian concerns within Iraq between Sunni and Shia? Will these violent concerns diminish if the US and its allies withdraw?

Kaplan is saying that the US is withdrawing from Iraq with US reconstruction aid already running out, infrastructure disintegrating , insurgency raging and with religious factions fighting in what some alarmists claim is approaching a state of civil war. Recent concerns in this regard follow the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. This bombing and subsequent attacks on 27 mosques in Bhagdad, are an attempt to drive a civil war, although it is doubtful these events, in themselves will do so. More likely there will be limited reprisals, demonstrations withe people of Iraq returning to their miserable, difficult lives.

According to Kaplan, the US looks to many Iraqis ‘like an honest broker’ preventing the country’s disintegration. The US presence has become a buffer between Iraq's two major religious sects and between relative order and mayhem. Where the US does not operate in Iraq it seems nothing works. Competing local sects control government ministries as fiefdoms, where connections count for everything and ability for nothing. And, just as the ministries ignore direction from above, local fims ignore ministries. While the Iraqi military are performing better – they no longer ‘melt away’ - their ability can be questioned as they are dominated by sectarianism. The Iraqi police operate as brutal militias and oppress Sunnis. In some areas previously anti-American Sunni’s are turning to the US for protection. If the US withdraws Iraq could become an even more devastated horror show. On sectarianism in the military and the police and the codoning of militia activity see the New York Times here. Quote 'The militias pose a double threat to the future of Iraq: they exist both as marauding gangs, as the violence on Wednesday showed, and as sanctioned members of the Iraqi Army and the police'.

The need is to isolate the population from the insurgents by providing them with security. This is the only way to win this type of asymmetrical war. But the US administration intends to draw down troop levels to 100,000 by the end of this year, with the pullback already well underway as US forces surrender countryside and head for their major bases. Implicitly the US seem to be accepting defeat. Kaplan (and following him, JQ) cite a single military officer as saying that 180,000 troops, more than double the number under intended policy, are needed. I am unsure how much weight should be placed on this single officer’s assessment but the clear implication of Kaplan’s argument is that the current intended number of troops is too low and that the US should stay the course and at least maintain troop numbers until the situation stabilizes.

An effective counterinsurgency strategy requires times and patience but the US seems close to having exhausted its resolve. Global pressures to induce them to leave will further weaken it. The need now is to support the people of Iraq by not leaving the country in a state bordering on civil war but, instead, to rebuild infrastructure destroyed by US bombing, secure major roads and seek a non-sectarian, effective civil administration, police and army. A major initiative should be to provide public sector employment for unemployed Iraqi male youth. Another essential initiative iis to replace the current government with a non-sectarian alternative.

The initial case for going into Iraq is an irrelevant ‘sunk cost’. Moreover, the bitterness many feel towards the Coalition's intention to go into Iraq is clouding judgements. That the invasion itself may have been a military disaster does not deter from the fact that the current difficult - though not impossible - situation must be addressed.

One part of the current problem is the role of Iran and this is something that can be addressed, if necessary by military action. Indeed 31% of Americans now regard Iran as the US's most significant enemy . In-so-far as Iran is funding the Shia uprising in Iraq and threatening to start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, these perceptions of the US public are accurate.

H.E. Seyed Mohammad Khatami

I heard this remarkable man - ex president of Iran 1997-2005 - speak at La Trobe University this evening.  Mr Khatami is a Muslim cleric whose main interest is political philosophy.  I found his prepared speech, which ran for half an hour, academic and rather dry.  For another 2 hours however he took good-natured, though often pointed questions from his audience with grace, animation and (most of all) an erudite humor that had even the stern-faced security guards in stiches of laughter.  It was the largest public meeting I have attended at LTU with about 1300 in attendance - the audience filled 3 lecture theatres to capacity. 

A most enjoyable evening which touched on the conservatives in Iran, fanatical Muslims, fanatical neocons, Iranian nuclear power, Palestine, Barack Obama.

Khatami's public presence did not support the Jewish Community Council of Victoria's image of him as a Jew-hating supporter of terrorism.  In his public statements tonight he expressed religious solidarity with the Jews - in terms of a common religious heritage - but opposition to their occupation of Palestine, total opposition to religious fundamentalism and absolute opposition to terrorism.  He saw Obama as a positive force that was nevertheless likely to be thwarted by US pressure groups.  He skillfully promoted the Iranian national image - no mean feat given the press it receives.

The JCCV condemned LTU for inviting him but in my view we should listen. In human terms I've got to say that I feel some bond with people such as Khatami. I probably would not agree with some of his specific religious views but to be honest, if I was organising a barbie, I'd like him to come.  Maybe I am gullible and falling for a skilled propagandist! Maybe not.

Iraq elections

Ex-president George Bush's Iraq surge seems to have been a success.  Free elections in Iraq where Sunni arabs participated in force and where there was widespread participation - was one of the positive outcomes that can be attributed to the surge.  Contrary to popular opinion Iran is weakened by a strengthened Iraq and the rational basis for the intervention in Iraq is confirmed.  As John Bolton remarks concerning the Iraqi elections:

"...the elections could make a deep impression on the citizens of Iran and its vassal, Syria. Young, educated, sophisticated Iranians, dissatisfied with their country’s religious orthodoxy and economic failures since the 1979 revolution, will draw their own conclusions from Iraq’s peaceful democratic process."

President Obama argues that the successful, peaceful elections provide support for his policy of US withdrawal. That is probably true but it is evidence too that the surge has been far more successful than its detractors would admit.  Let us hope that Obama takes wise and flexible counsel on the Iraq War.  I believe that history will be kinder to George Bush than to his leftist rabble critics.