Tag Archives: foreign policy

Mistaken Analogy

Posted on by
1

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are correctly worried about ending the current campaign in Iran too soon, before

Iran’s navy and its missile stocks, launchers, and productive capacity are destroyed. It would also leave most of the IRGC and its Basij enforcers intact.

But they drew the wrong analogy in explaining their concern.

…George HW Bush and the first Gulf War in 1990. The coalition campaign was so successful in pushing Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait that Bush and his advisers stopped too soon and spared most of his military.

No. Bush the Younger had gained non-Iraq Arab nations’ cooperation in the campaign by promising not to go for regime change in Iraq and to limit the campaign to driving the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait decisively enough that Saddam would be unable to reinvade for the foreseeable future. Saddam’s forces were driven out, decimated badly, and their remnants driven back to Baghdad. That Bush stopped at that point and largely withdrew coalition forces was simply a fulfillment of that commitment.

After that, southern Iraq’s Shiites revolted against Saddam’s remaining Sunni forces, largely with Bush’s encouragement and were massacred, but this is a separate Bush error, having nothing to do with leaving too soon or keeping his commitment to end the fight with Kuwait’s liberation.

In reality, no analogy is needed regarding too-optimistic and -early off-ramps for the current Iran campaign. This is amply demonstrated by Iran’s behavior in response.

Iran has fired missiles or drones on Israel, the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and even Oman, which was negotiating with the US on Iran’s behalf. It also launched strikes, if fewer of them, on Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and…Cyprus.
Some of its targets in these countries are US bases, but the attacks were often directed at civilian targets, including hotels in Dubai. [I add, attacks directed against Israeli apartment complexes.]

This is reason enough to finish the job in Iran before announcing victory.

Foolishness

Posted on by
Reply

US intelligence estimates and experts outside government are busily downplaying Iran’s ability to launch ICBMs, much less to do so against American targets.

To build effective ICBMs, which soar out of the atmosphere and into space, Iran would have to overcome hurdles including developing a re-entry vehicle with heat shielding that can survive a fiery descent into the atmosphere, and a guidance system to keep the missile on target.

Iran has been launching satellites into orbit for years. Developing a reentry capability is a straightforward engineering task that lots of nations worked out decades ago, including such allies of Iran as Russia and the PRC. Indeed, Iran’s ballistic missile launches against Israel, as pointed out by ralflongwalker in another venue, already gives it most of the heat-shielding capability it needs for reentry after intercontinental flight. It’s an engineering refinement, now, not a de novo capability.

Iran’s ability to put its own satellites into orbit on its own rockets—much less its ability to target those Israeli sites—gives it already most, if not all, of the guidance system it needs, especially given the large footprint of its targets–our population centers.

 

Those downplayers plainly don’t understand the men of the Iranian government. In order to destroy us—the Great Satan—it would be necessary only to destroy our major cities with their populations and financial centers. Or even more easily, simply to detonate nuclear-driven EMP over us.

I Know Something You Don’t…

Posted on by
1

….so trust me. Of course. That’s the self-important claim of Virginia’s Progressive-Democrat Senator, in his Wall Street Journal op-ed, regarding the ongoing US/Israeli campaign against Iran and its nuclear programs, missile and drone launching and production facilities, and the nation’s chief terrorists at the top of the Iranian government. His opening claim:

As a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, with access to ample classified information about threats from Iran and others, I can state plainly that there was no imminent threat from Iran to America sufficient to warrant committing our sons and daughters to another war in the Middle East….

Maybe, maybe not. It’s awfully convenient to cite “information” that’s hidden from us average Americans, almost as convenient as citing those childhood imaginary friends masqueraded as “officials familiar with the matter” of which news writers are so enamored. There’s no more reason to believe Kaine’s claims than those other claims.

He went on.

To be sure, Iran is a bad actor, oppressing its own citizens and fomenting violence outside its borders, including attacks against US troops in the region.

Of course, in his mind, attacking our forces and the civilians and militaries of our friends and allies presents no cause for kinetic response. Do diplomacy again. Continue those decades of failed diplomatic efforts. This time is different. He means it.

And this, from his claimed history that the rest of us, not nearly as learned as his august self, do not know:

The US and Iran were friends and allies until the US led a coup to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953.

Yeah. We were such tight friends and close allies that we felt constrained to assist in tossing that government. The illogic here is awesome.

Then Kaine cited a list of Iranian-inspired if not -led attacks on our facilities and murders of our people throughout the Middle East. Our support for Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war, though, is sufficient justification for us to ignore the mullahs’ terrorist attacks on us and on our friends and allies. Diplomacy is so effective with terrorists, you see.

Then he quoted—carefully cherry-picking—from the JCPOA, which his Party claimed to end Iran’s nuclear weapons aspirations:

Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.

That’s in the first paragraph of the Preface to the document. Throughout the body of the document, where the actual force of the agreement lies, are repeated agreements that sanctions would be lifted at 8, 15, or 25 years, depending on the sanctions involved (those at 25 years are trivial). Following the end of those sanctions, Iran would have been free to resume nuclear weapons development without consequence. Kaine so carefully withheld these tidbits from his op-ed.

And his “constitutional” pseudo-argument: he opened with this,

without the congressional debate and vote that the Constitution requires

and bookended that with this at the close of his piece:

How long will the Article I branch of America’s government remain silent against this wholesale repudiation of our basic constitutional order?

This is the carefully generalized, carefully unspecific claim of “it’s unconstitutional!” while just as carefully declining to cite the clause(s) of our Constitution that mandates all of this. What Article I—Section 8 for those of you following along more closely than Kaine is doing—says is that the power to declare war is reserved to the Congress. That’s all that our Constitution says about our involvement in the beginning of wars, and it’s a far cry from the Article II executive authority to fight for our safety.

Even the War Powers Act, grants the President—whoever he is—60 days of fighting before he must seek Congressional approval to continue. Congresses led by both parties have explored altering the Act, and each of them have explicitly declined to do so. At that, the Act is iffy itself; generations of Presidents since the Act’s passage in 1973 have called the Act an unconstitutional infringement of our Constitution’s separation of powers structure of government.

This kind of deliberately misleading foolishness by Kaine is why his Party can never be trusted with the reins (Party: reigns) of government.

A Rhyme in History?

Posted on by
Reply

In the ongoing rise of tension between the US and Iran, which latter includes ties with Russia and the People’s Republic of China, The Wall Street Journal had this bit:

Iran is an important partner for Moscow and one that it wouldn’t want to lose, especially after the US deposed Nicolás Maduro, an ally of Russia, in Venezuela last month. At the same time, Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t likely to come to the aid of Khamenei if US strikes appear on the verge of bringing him down.
“These relationships are highly pragmatic, highly transactional,” said Alexander Palmer, a fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, on Tehran’s security ties to Russia and Iran. “They don’t have a sufficient strategic interest in Iran to be willing to go to war with the United States over the country.”

Early in WWII, the UK and Russia invaded Iran and occupied most of the country. The two had agreed to leave Iran six months after the war against Nazi Germany had ended. At the end of those six months, the UK began withdrawing, and Russia indicated it intended to stay for control of Iranian oil. It was only under pressure from the US that the Russians ultimately withdrew.

These days it’s another contest between Russia and the US for controlling influence in Iran. Should the current Iranian government fall, there will ensue two questions: one is whether a stable government be quickly formed and installed. In that event, there likely won’t be much Russia can do, especially as bogged down as the barbarian is in Ukraine.

The other question flows from the political chaos that will develop if no national-capable government is quickly formed. In that event, Russia will move to gain overt control over Iran’s domestic affairs, particularly with regard to Iran’s oil, of which Russia’s primary need is denial of the oil to the world market in order to prop up the prices Russia can get for its own oil, and with regard to Iran’s war materiel production, especially its drone production. From this, the question expands to include the US response to Russia’s moves for control and the contest between Russia and the US over that control.

Deterrence and the Need for It

Posted on by
Reply

In the present…negotiations…between the US and Iran, the US wants

…Iran’s nuclear programs eliminated, regional proxy forces disbanded, and ballistic missiles dismantled. Iran is seen as unlikely to agree to the last point, because it doesn’t have much of an air force and relies on missiles as its main deterrent.

Iran won’t agree to eliminating its nuclear programs, most especially its nuclear weapons development and (future) production programs, either. Nor will it agree, in practice, to disbanding its proxy terrorist entities, no matter how much the mullahs and their negotiating representatives might lie about agreeing to do in any agreement.

The bit about deterrence is what’s important in this post, though. One component of this failure to agree is on the US’ negotiators. Iran has no serious fear of attack by its neighbors, and so no real need of deterrence, since Iran has nothing in the way of resources, either in raw materials or in production output, that any nation might want that can’t be gotten far more cheaply and far more beneficially for both that (those) nation(s) and for Iran through freely achieved trade agreements than from invasion, conquering, and occupation. Not even from putative adversaries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, or Pakistan. Not even in tit for tat, blood for blood honor vengeance attitudes in the Middle East.

The US needs to make this case directly. President Donald Trump (R) already is hinting at it with his trade deal commentary, but he needs to be bluntly explicit about it.