All the war games and simulations that I have seen have concluded that it isn't possible to disarm Iran by airstrikes. Learning perhaps from what happened to Saddam's nuclear plant at Osirak, the authorities have dispersed the program widely and put a lot of it underground. Nor can the Israelis be expected to do much by proxy: They would have to fly over Iraq this time, and it would be even more obvious than usual that they were acting as an American surrogate. Professor Edward Luttwak claims, in the Wall Street Journal, that selective strikes could still retard or degrade the program, but this, if true, would only restate the problem in a different form.
...
This means that our options are down to three: reliance on the United Nations/European Union bargaining table, a "decapitating" military strike, or Nixon goes to China. The first being demonstrably useless and somewhat humiliating, and the second being possibly futile as well as hazardous, it might be worth giving some thought to the third of these.
...
But they have a crucial vulnerability on the inside. The overwhelmingly young population—an ironic result of the mullahs' attempt to increase the birth rate after the calamitous war with Iraq—is fed up with medieval rule.
...
So, picture if you will the landing of Air Force One at Imam Khomeini International Airport. The president emerges, reclaims the U.S. Embassy in return for an equivalent in Washington and the un-freezing of Iran's financial assets, and announces that sanctions have been a waste of time and have mainly hurt Iranian civilians. (He need not add that they have also given some clerics monopoly positions in various black markets; the populace already knows this.) A new era is possible, he goes on to say. America and the Shiite world have a common enemy in al-Qaida, just as they had in Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban, and the Iraqi Baathists. America is home to a large and talented Iranian community. Let the exchange of trade and people and ideas begin! There might perhaps even be a ticklish-to-write paragraph, saying that America is not proud of everything it is has done in the past—most notably Jimmy Carter's criminal decision to permit Saddam to invade Iran.
Hitchens is something of a hawk, being strongly in favour of the Iraq invasion and frequently critical of the "anti-war" left (I put that in scare quotes because it's his contention that many peace activists are actually in favour of war, when it's done against US/Israeli). But he's not at all in favour of a military attack on Iran. I think his analysis comes from a position of some authority and it accords with other analyses I've read.
2 comments:
Have a look at Paul Rogers' analysis, which reaches similar conclusions re viability of US air strikes.
I'm not sure if the 'Nixon Goes to China' analogy is so easily portable to Iran's situation. The essential reason for Sino-US rapprochement in the early 70's was Sino-Soviet rivalry, for which there's no equivalent here; the only direct threat Iran faces is from the US itself, and Iran has a number of levers over the US (e.g. Iraq) that China didn't have thirty-five years ago. Iran's power structure is also more fragmented than was China's in 1972, so getting Iranian consensus for this sort of deal would be far from straightforward. Not to mention the many powerful lobbies within the US that would try to frustrate it.
I happily agree that striking Iran is unviable from a military point of view. However, I doubt that Bush (and Rumsfeld) care too much about military advisors, as they didn't listen to them before invading Iraq. CNN aired an interview with a former general of the US armee, who clearly stated was the attack on Iran is on its way. http://movies.crooksandliars.com/cnn_ywt_iran_decision_made_060414a_240x180.mov
Surely, you might doubt which credibility somebody has, who is no longer an active part of the forces. Yet it proves that the spin is on, and the American population is prepared of what will happen soon.
The Age published today an outline of the UN proceedings against Iran. A resolution seems in my point of view quite unlikely, as Russia and China have good reasons to veto an UN resolution. Russia wants to make some money with either nuclear technology and/or with selling uranium, China is about to be the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, a deal worth 100 billion US$ over the next 25 years is on its way (or maybe even already signed).
A failed UN resolution hasn't stopped the US from invading Iraq, and will not stop it from invading Iran. Unilateral preemptive strikes (I hate this kind of unspeak... http://www.unspeak.com ) are integral part of the National security strategy. This papers outlines the clear intention to gain control over the middle-easter oil supplies, and is part of the Bush administrations agenda.
However, I believe that only China and/or Russia could stop an Iran invasion, like they currently try to block UN resolutions. The danger of an Iran invasion is IMHO not primarily the anticipated wave of terror, but a military engagement of either Russia or China once the attack has started.
Isn't it great to live in such interesting times where history is made?
Post a Comment