Extending Nuclear Talks With Iran Was A Mistake

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and author of the award winning book “A Time to Betray” (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).

He posted an article at the Daily Caller yesterday about the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran that have been taking place in Geneva since 2006. The talks reached an interim agreement when the sanctions placed on Iran began to take a toll on the Iranian economy. Many of those sanctions have been loosened, and Iran has been allowed to continue on its merry way of developing nuclear weapons capable of reaching all of the Middle East, Europe, and America.

The article reports:

Instead, the regime has adopted a policy of “elongation” with the 5+1 nations in which it strings along the United States, France, Britain, Russia, China and Germany as it develops nuclear weapons, wrote Alireza Forghani.

Forghani is a senior analyst and strategy specialist in the supreme leader’s camp and closely aligned with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime’s Ammar Strategic Base, a radical think thank, and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.

“Elongation” is Iran’s sole doctrine, Forghani wrote, in which the Geneva negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran were “never supposed to be brought to a successful conclusion … whether positive or negative.” Those talks began in 2006 and have been extended several times as one deadline after another failed to produce a comprehensive agreement. The two sides agreed on Nov. 24 to yet another deadline extension, this time to June 30, 2015.

Forghani warned that soon he will promote the slogan “Nuclear weapon is our definite right,” and that there will be people in the streets demanding a nuclear-armed Iran. He also promised the destruction of Israel, which he claimed “is exactly what Almighty God wants.”

So far, Iran has gotten all of the concessions it has wanted from the western powers. It is following the path that North Korea followed in order to become a nuclear power. Frankly, I don’t think the fact that either of those two countries have nuclear weapons makes anyone safer.

I believe that one of the reasons Iran has been so bold about keeping its centrifuges is that it does not fear an attack by Israel. The conventional wisdom is that American pressure is preventing that attack. However, I also believe that if America turns its back on Israel in any way, Israel will deal with Iran’s nuclear program. I also believe that America is already in the process of turning its back on Israel.

The nuclear talks have been extended until June 2015. It is a reasonably safe assumption that Iran agreed to that deadline because they expect their nuclear program to be up and running before that deadline. At that point, Iran will be a nuclear nation and the talks will be moot.

The article further reports:

As reported in April 2012, an analysis by Mohammad Mohammadi, an Iranian international affairs and nuclear program analyst, concluded that the country no longer needs to compromise with the U.S.

“It is quite clear that when we watch the current arguments between America and Israel over Iran, the Obama administration is quite confused,” Mohammadi said in the Keyhan newspaper, an outlet under Khamenei’s direct supervision.

In his article, titled “The Lessons from the Past for the Negotiations in April,” Mohammadi wrote: “Looking back at the past decade, all the red lines by America and the West over Iran’s nuclear issue have now been transformed into acceptance. America has always adopted radical actions at first that have changed to symbolic measures later. Iran has always known that America and the West needed a way to solve the nuclear issue with some honor, and today it is quite visible that with the defeat of America’s policies toward Iran, the talk about a need to solve the Iranian nuclear issue diplomatically is a way to obtain that honor.”

Another diplomatic victory for the Obama Administration.

Preventing Iran From Going Nuclear

The Debka File released a report today that there had been an explosion at Iran‘s Arak heavy water reactor last week. The government of Iran had attempted to keep the news of the explosion quiet.

The article reports that the Iranian Atomic Council is investigating four possible causes of the explosion:

1. Sabotage.
2. A virus planted in the computers that control the systems administering the test.
3. An error in engineering calculations in the design of the coolant containers which underestimated their strength for standing up to the required level of pressure.
4.  The deliberate sale to Iran of inferior steel materials that were not strong enough to withstand such pressure.

The article concludes:

Last August, Iran informed the nuclear watchdog that the test with real fuel would be the final one before the reactor entered its running-in stage. The damage caused by the explosion will have postponed that stage indefinitely.
The Arak reactor, known as IR-40 and designed for a capacity of 40 megawatt, is the cause of deep concern in Israel because it is capable of producing plutonium for use in nuclear bombs as an alternative to enriched uranium

Obviously I have no idea what caused this explosion. What I do know is that explosions at reactor sites are a much better way to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons that an actual attack on Iran.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Do We Continue This Dance ?

Front Page Magazine posted an article today about the latest round of talks on the Iranian nuclear program.

The article quotes a recent New York Times article:

 [a] successful meeting could prolong the diplomatic dance with Tehran, delaying any possible military confrontation…until after the presidential election. It could also keep a lid on oil prices…. Lower gasoline prices would aid the economic recovery in the United States, and Mr. Obama’s electoral prospects.

Wow. Has it occurred to anyone that we have done this dance before? All Iran needs is time to complete its research and obtain nuclear weapons–we are giving them the time.

The article at Front Page Magazine quoted Amos Yadlin, formerly Israel’s chief of Military Intelligence. Speaking earlier this month at a conference of the Washington Institute in Virginia, he stated:

 nuclear Iran is more dangerous than attacking Iran.

If they can’t be contained when they don’t have nuclear weapon[s], how can they be contained when they do?…

I am sure they won’t launch a nuclear bomb the moment they get it, but the possibility [that] as a result of miscalculations and lack of stability, they will launch [a] nuclear missile—it’s not a possibility you can ignore. The flying time of a missile from Tehran to Tel Aviv is seven minutes and the temptation for a first strike is huge.

If you really want all options on the table, you need to be very credible with the military option.

Israel needs to be able to defend herself regardless of the price of oil or the coming elections. To block Israel from defending herself is extremely short-sighted. Has anyone considered what the world would look like after Iran went nuclear?

Israeli leaders understand the price of attacking Iran. On March 15, I had the privilege of hearing Marc Kahlberg speak at the Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts. Please see rightwinggranny.com for details.

Mr. Kahlberg spoke of the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran and reminded his audience of Iran’s past behavior:

What are the dangers of Israel attacking Iran in order to end its nuclear program? In a war with Iran, Israel will probably have 20,000 fatalities, 100,000 injured, and one and a half to two million people suffering from trauma. If Iran has nukes, it will probably totally destroy Israel. Great choice. The other thing that was pointed out was that in dealing with the leaders of Iran, we are not dealing with people we can depend on to act rationally. There is a martyrdom aspect of the Iranian regime that does not make them rational when it comes to dealing with nuclear weapons. A regime that sends twelve-year old boys with keys around their necks to march into minefields to clear the mines (keys that were supposed to assure them the instant entrance to paradise when they were killed by the mines) should not be considered rational.

Sometimes negotiations are not the answer. An attack on Iran would create a lot of turmoil. It would make much more sense to undermine the current government to the point where it collapsed. The problem is not Iran going nuclear as much as it is the current government of Iran going nuclear. A few dozen targeted assassinations would probably also solve the problem.

UPDATE:

Since posting this, I have stumbled upon some interesting historic information. Israel has just formed a new coalition government–designed to bring more people together. Those were the actions Israel took just before the 1967 war,

The timeline for 1967 goes as follows:

In May 1967, Egypt evicted the UN observers from the Sinai Peninsula and began amassing forces there. On May 22, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. On May 30, Jordan and Egypt signed a mutual defense pact as Iran began moving troops to the Israeli border. On June 1, Israel formed a national unity government. enlarging the cabinet and forming a united front. On June 5, Israel attacked the amassing Arab forces.

Stay tuned.

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Undefending America

The MIRV U.S. Peacekeeper missile, with the re...

Image via Wikipedia

Bill Gertz is well known for his books and articles on national defense. He posted an article yesterday at the Washington Free Beacon yesterday about the impact of President Obama’s policies on national security.

The article states:

President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to consider cutting U.S. strategic nuclear forces to as low as 300 deployed warheads—below the number believed to be in China’s arsenal and far fewer than current Russian strategic warhead stocks.

Pentagon and military planners were asked to develop three force levels for the U.S. arsenal of deployed strategic nuclear warheads: a force of 1,100 to 1,000 warheads; a second scenario of between 700 and 800 warheads; and the lowest level of between 300 and 400 warheads.

A congressional official said no president in the past ever told the Pentagon to conduct a review based on specific numbers of warheads.

This review is not based on world conditions, as in the past, but simply on numbers. According the the article, the drastic cuts have come under fire from senior military leaders, but there have been no public comments.

One retired Air Force General commented:

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said even considering such deep strategic cuts is irrational.

“No sane military leader would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy,” McInerney (Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney) told the Washington Free Beacon.

“Going down to 1000 to 1,100 is risky enough and frankly in today’s world, very risky. The purpose of our nuclear force structure is to deter any adversary from even thinking that they could minimize our attack options. Such thinking is very dangerous and will only encourage our adversaries to make bold decisions.”

A congressional official and former administration official familiar with the ongoing review said the bottom level warhead levels raise serious questions about whether a nuclear force that size would deter adversaries. It also would raise questions about so-called “extended deterrence,” the threat to use nuclear weapons against states like North Korea on behalf of allies like Japan.

The new strategic review reflects the president’s 2009 speech in Prague when he said the United States would pursue peace and security in a world “without nuclear weapons.”

I too would like to see a world without nuclear weapons, but I would also like to see a world where America is ready and able to defend herself and her friends.

The article concludes with the following comment:

Kenneth deGraffenreid, a former Reagan administration National Security Council official, said in an interview that the plans for sharp nuclear cuts are “part of the administration’s purposeful decline of American military power.”

The damage to nuclear forces is compounded by “massive reductions across the board in defense spending on conventional forces,” he said.

“Defense is the only part of government this administration is reducing,” he said. “There wasn’t a single dollar of stimulus money spent on defense.”

It’s time to elect a President who will defend America–both verbally and physically.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Common Sense From The Wall Street Journal

IAEA headquarters in Vienna, Austria. Photogra...

Image via Wikipedia

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article entitled, “If Iran Gets the Bomb.” The article reviews some of the history of Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

The article reminds us of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report released this week which stated that Iran seems to be on a structured path to building a nuclear weapon. The article reminds us of the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate which claimed that Iran had ended its work on nuclear weapons on 2003, thus assuring that the Bush administration would take no action against Iran. I suspect that when historians review that report, they will wonder why Americans let party politics interfere with their national security.

The article points out:

The serious choice now before the Administration is between military strikes and more of the same. As the IAEA report makes painfully clear, more of the same means a nuclear Iran, possibly within a year.

The article then examines the consequences of various possible decisions. The writers point out that  “no war ever goes precisely as planned.” That applies to both boots-on-the-ground wars and aerial wars.

Iran’s going nuclear would trigger an arms race in the Middle East–the Saudis would want an atomic bomb, as would other countries. It is also a safe bet that a nuclear Iran would not hesitate to bully its neighbors. A nuclear Iran could seriously alter any stability in the Middle East that currently exists.

The article concludes:

Opponents of a pre-emptive strike say it would do no more than delay Iran’s programs by a few years. But something similar was said after Israel’s strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, without which the U.S. could never have stood up to Saddam after his invasion of Kuwait. In life as in politics, nothing is forever. But a strike that sets Iran’s nuclear programs back by several years at least offers the opportunity for Iran’s democratic forces to topple the regime without risking a wider conflagration.

No U.S. President could undertake a strike on Iran except as a last resort, and Mr. Obama can fairly say that he has given every resort short of war an honest try. At the same time, no U.S. President should leave his successor with the catastrophe that would be a nuclear Iran. A nuclear Iran on Mr. Obama’s watch would be fatal to more than his legacy.

Israel will not sit quietly and let Iran go nuclear. That fact needs to be considered as our government decides what America should do. There are only two rational solutions I have heard to Iran going nuclear–the first is to overthrow the current government and replace it with a secular democracy, the second is an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack by either America or Israel. Neither solution is guaranteed, but a solution is necessary.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta