Centerfield

Time to send it to the Security Councl, then. Both John Kerry and several European nations have proposed this solution. Iran has already flatly rejected it.

Their foreign ministry said it would be "irrational" for Iran to rely on uranium fuel supplies from abroad, as they may be there one day and gone the next.

As recently as April 16, the foreign ministry said:

The Foreign Ministry spokesman refused to disclose details of a plan offered by Iran as part of the country's proposal to reach breakthrough in the standoff, but reiterated Tehran's determination to produce nuclear fuel by its own.
"Any plan offered by Iran is based on the principle that we never give up uranium enrichment and that the suspension of enrichment is temporary and voluntary," Asefi said.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 28, 2005 11:22 AM

True.

However, in the spirit of centrism I would say we should go back to Iran, say "look, show us you mean what you say. We will drop economic sanctions, we will expidite your entry into the WTO, we will treat you like a grown up."

Although, sometimes it's just the case that I have too much faith in people

Posted by: Art at May 28, 2005 12:33 PM

Moving to the center in the middle of us and Iran would be a long, long journey. Centrism shouldn't mean compromise just for the sake of compromise. And no country should be rewarded (like with membership in the WTO) for threatening to do something which: 1) is illegal (they are a signatory of the anti-proliferation treaty) and 2) is blantantly hostile.

Iran has plenty of oil. They don't have any need, whatsoever, for nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

I'm sorry, but your proposal would simply encourage every country facing economic sanctions to try to get out of them by doing BAD things rather than by doing good things.

And quite frankly, I have no desire to show any leniency to Iran at all. They got off light in 1981. They violated every diplomatic protocol and international agreement known to man by taking accredited diplomats hostage. We should have invaded them then, destroyed their army, and demilitarized them for the next 50 years. But we didn't. We took it. And we paid over the next many years with Iranian-sponsored terrorism.

The time to appease dictatorships is long gone. Iran has given us absolutely zero reason to trust them, and they are patently lying about why they want nuclear technology. Bad, bad idea to help them out in any way, shape, or form.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 28, 2005 12:52 PM

Maybe! Lets look at it from the Iranian viewpoint:

a) Only the Iranians know how much oil they have left. All the OPEC countries have been padding their estimates of know oil reserves to get bigger pieces of the OPEC output pie.

b) Worldwide demand for oil and natural gas is growing. It may be cheaper to to sell the oil and make their domestic power from nuclear.

c) What idiot would voluntarily place themselves in the position of being depended on the whims of a hostile foreign power for their energy needs?

d) Have the Iranians every invaded another country? Didn't Saddam start the war with them? They are a sovereign nation, why should they drop their pants just to satisfy a bunch of hostile Christians. National pride is a powerful force.

e) Doesn't Israel , North Korea, Pakistan, France, England and the USA have nuclear weapons. It take a lot of balls to tell your neighbor that he can't have something you already own. What blatant hypocrisy.

f) Who's going to stop them! The Europeans have no stomach for war. The Russians and Chinese don't consider Iran a threat. While the USA is doing the Iraqi tango.

PS: Just for the record I think they are building the bomb, but that doesn't make any of the above arguments less valid.

Posted by: Bob J Young at May 28, 2005 04:37 PM

Bob young
who are the "hostile christians"??? LOL.

It is not hypocrisy, because they agreed to not develop nuclear weapons. They made that decision.

The US does not have to invade Iran. their government is not that strong. It is possible targeted strikes that significantly weaken the military, would do enough to bring down the current govt. the fear is if they decided to launch an attack on Iraq. But that would just give the US more justification to completely destroy the Iranian military.

We either need to accept the fact that they will get the bomb, and that non-proliferation is not going to work. We need another plan.

The Chinese and Russians have not learned from the history of the US. They will learn, both countries have muslims that they will have to deal with.

Posted by: sean mccray at May 28, 2005 04:45 PM

For uranium to work in a nuclear reactor it must be enriched to contain 2-3% uranium-235. Weapons-grade uranium must contain 90% or more u-235.

That's only true for light water reactors. For heavy water reactors, natural uranium provides U-235. Why not offer an adequate supply of heavy water so that they would not need any enriched fuel, and let a refusal of such an offer constitute proof that they're insistence on enriching their own uranium has purposes beyond making their own civilian fuel supply.

As an aside, Pakistan started an enrichment program in the 70's, even though they use heavy water. Inspectors considered it a red flag given that their energy plants didn't need it. We all know what happened afterwards.

Posted by: Scott Smith at May 28, 2005 11:57 PM

"The US does not have to invade Iran. their government is not that strong. It is possible targeted strikes that significantly weaken the military, would do enough to bring down the current govt. the fear is if they decided to launch an attack on Iraq. But that would just give the US more justification to completely destroy the Iranian military."

What a silly ass. Iran is not Iraq. Iran has been trained by us, equipped by us (illegally, of course since 1979, but hey, Raytheon, et al, needed the money. Remember "Iran-Contra"?) And guess what, they don't like us. Do you, like Dicky Perle, believe there will be a square in Tehran next year dedicated in loving memory of Dubya? You'd be just as correct as he was 2 years ago about Baghdad.

Here's reality, you silly twit. We can't stop the real threats to the U.S like Iran and N. Korea because we decided to tie up the army and Marines to take down an impotent regime in Iraq that posed *zero* threat to us or their neighbors. Get used to the new world, turds for brains. I'll bet you voted for it.

Posted by: Mike P. at May 29, 2005 03:10 AM

Scott,

Because Iran insists that it will not depend on any other country for its nuclear energy needs. As one of Iran's members of parilament recently said: "Gaining access to nuclear technology while mastering the complete nuclear fuel cycle is of prime importance for the country and the parliament."

If anybody wants to trust the word of a country whose Supreme Court still upholds death by stoning for adultery, that's fine with me. But I don't think I will, and I don't think my government should.

They've already admitted they broke the non-proliferation treaty by failing to disclose their enrichment activities. Don't give them incentives and reward them for breaking deals that they themselves made.

Posted by: PatHMV at May 29, 2005 12:41 PM

Send it to the Security Council? Hah, you actually think the Security Council would vote for sanctions? Perhaps Russia could be provoked into voting for sanctions, but China wouldn't -- it's too interesed in maintaining its growing ties to Middle Eastern oil. And, if sanctions are passed, how is the UN going to administer them? Woefully underfunded with new dues cuts from the US well on the way, there's asbolutely no way the UN could successfully maintain comprehensive sanctions. If anything, such an action would push Iran off the deep end into the same territory North Korea's residing in, which would guarantee its development of nukes. Offering carrots along with sticks is not a terrible idea, especially when the current sticks-only approach by the Bush administration only promises continued Iranian defiance and the development of nuclear weaponry.

Posted by: Justin at May 29, 2005 07:03 PM

PatHMV,
The point of offering heavy water is to obviate the need for the fuel cycle for any legitimate purpose, or at least expose that it's really an illegitimate purpose. Right now, they can claim that providing LWR fuel is insufficient because when that runs out they can't be certain of obtaining more. However, heavy water can be used over and over again, with natural unenriched uranium (any nuclear engineers reading this who could fill in more details). Anyway, my point is less to reach a deal than to expose the mullahs' real intent.

If the Iranian people would support us, I would say to just invade. They have the right to alter or abolish their government. However, all current indications are that they do not intend to invoke that right and would support their government if invaded.

Posted by: Scott Smith at May 29, 2005 08:29 PM

"If anybody wants to trust the word of a country whose Supreme Court still upholds death by stoning for adultery, that's fine with me. But I don't think I will, and I don't think my government should."

Yeah, well, until recently, our Supreme Court upheld laws that allowed minors and mentally handicapped people to be executed. And we do have other allies that condone stoning [think Saudi Arabia] so, by staying their allies, we condone it. We don't have much moral high ground on this one.

"They've already admitted they broke the non-proliferation treaty by failing to disclose their enrichment activities. Don't give them incentives and reward them for breaking deals that they themselves made."

We've broken the same non-proliferation treaty by resuming testing and experimenting, among other things, but it's okay, for us, right?

Yes, Iran is going for the bomb, or even if they're not now, they're thinking about it for tomorrow. Unfortunately, our military is tied up in Iraq, and there is precious little we can do about Iran, which is why we've actually done precious little. Let Europe take the lead, so we can settle Iraq before we deal with Iran.

It is very much hypocritical of us to go after Iran, but it's at least hypocrisy I can understand, not like going after the weakest of the "Axis of Evil".

Every day I wake up, expecing Kim Jung Il to have invaded S. Korea. Frankly, I don't know what he's waiting for.

Posted by: Ryan at May 30, 2005 02:18 PM

>>And we do have other allies that condone stoning [think Saudi Arabia]

Not to speak for PatHMV, but I think the answer there would be that we shouldn't (and *don't*) trust Saudi Arabia, either, regardless of whether or not they wear the title "ally." This isn't an issue about having the "moral high ground"-- this is an issue about doing what's right. Do you not discipline your children for doing heroin just because you experimented with pot? Or do you privately acknowledge your moral shortcomings while nonetheless disciplining your children?

>>Unfortunately, our military is tied up in Iraq, and there is precious little we can do about Iran, which is why we've actually done precious little.

NOT THAT I AM ADVOCATING IT, but if you think we can't execute another "Thunder Run," this time on Teheran, you're sorely mistaken. We could absolutely annihilate their conventional military capability-- and destroy their industrial capacity to produce a nuke-- if that were the decision the NCA chose. It's what would happen *afterwards* that is the problem-- we definitely couldn't fight another counterinsurgency against the unconventional threat that would emerge, nor could we probably sustain the damage it would incur upon our information operations strategy in the Islamic world. In other words, we'd have to be willing to let Iran become Somalia or the Sudan-- and that is what is keeping us from doing another Thunder Run. But it's not because we *can't*.

>>Every day I wake up, expecing Kim Jung Il to have invaded S. Korea. Frankly, I don't know what he's waiting for.

Probably has something to do with the fact that he knows the ROK (South Korean) Army, supported by the US Air Force, is capable of destroying his regime and re-unifying the Peninsula once and for all. You're making a common mistake. Americans, in our typically arrogant fashion, think that the US is all the stands in defense of South Korea-- in fact, the ROKs have 41 Army Divisions alone and 690,000 personnel in uniform. And they're *very* well trained-- one of the best I've worked with (and I've worked with over a dozen). Trust me, if Kim Jong Il does anything, he's going to get his initial penetration, yes, and then find his armies being rolled up by a South Korean counter-attack over the next few weeks.

Posted by: Bobby at May 30, 2005 03:20 PM

"Do you not discipline your children for doing heroin just because you experimented with pot? Or do you privately acknowledge your moral shortcomings while nonetheless disciplining your children?" Implied in this example is the notion that all American allies should be viewed as our children, whom we must discipline on occasion, even when they repeat the same mistakes we made. I could compare your comparision to the philosophies of "Whiteman's Burden". Why are we to assume that we have the ultimate answer to every question?

"NOT THAT I AM ADVOCATING IT, but if you think we can't execute another "Thunder Run," this time on Teheran, you're sorely mistaken." This is so very related the first arguement, but then, you acknowledge that just because we *can* do something is not reason *to* do something, and this is true. Having said that, you arguement for a Tehran "Thunder Run" would, in large parts, be dependant upon intelligence in regards to all of Iran's nuclear and weapons capibilitites. I can't claim to be an expert on the matter, but right now, frankly, I have almost no confidence in American Intelligence relating to any nation beginning with the letter "I", be it Isreal, Iraq, Iran, or probably even India. You're making assumptions on what could be faulty intelligence. Haven't we already done that enough?

"Trust me, if Kim Jong Il does anything, he's going to get his initial penetration, yes, and then find his armies being rolled up by a South Korean counter-attack over the next few weeks." General MacArthur could not have said it better himself. The Korean War turned out to be a little more difficult than he expected, too.

After all, one advantage Kim Jung Il has over his southern neighbors is that in all probability, he does have nuclear capability! It makes all the difference in the world.

Posted by: Ryan at May 30, 2005 06:38 PM

Implied in this example is the notion that all American allies should be viewed as our children, whom we must discipline on occasion, even when they repeat the same mistakes we made. I could compare your comparision to the philosophies of "Whiteman's Burden". Why are we to assume that we have the ultimate answer to every question?

No, that wasn't the implication at all-- although I knew you would read it that way. The question was supposed to demonstrate that sometimes you don't necessarily have the moral high ground, and doing the right thing requires you to be a hypocrit. A better example might have been police pulling over someone speeding, but that's really regardless. You conveniently avoided answering that question in favor of asking another. The question is: Are there instances when you don't have the moral high ground, but do something anyway? Or does not having the moral high ground automatically mean that you cannot act?

I can't claim to be an expert on the matter, but right now, frankly, I have almost no confidence in American Intelligence relating to any nation beginning with the letter "I", be it Isreal, Iraq, Iran, or probably even India. You're making assumptions on what could be faulty intelligence. Haven't we already done that enough?

That's a fair argument-- but it's got nothing to do with what you were arguing before. You said that our commitment in Iraq had caused us to have "precious little" that we could do about Iran-- I was pointing out that you are WRONG. Again, I'm not arguing for a Thunder Run-- in fact I even argued why we don't want to do it. But to say we're INCAPABLE of it is downright propaganda. We're VERY capable.

Now as to whether or not the intelligence is reliable, that's a totally different question, and one that I don't know anything about. I'm not privvy to the intelligence briefs on Iran.

General MacArthur could not have said it better himself. The Korean War turned out to be a little more difficult than he expected, too. After all, one advantage Kim Jung Il has over his southern neighbors is that in all probability, he does have nuclear capability! It makes all the difference in the world.

Your reading of history is spurious, at best. General MacArthur *never* argued that the ROKs were capable of their own defense, nor did he think that if the North attacked it would go altogether easily. His strategic mistake (which you're clutching at) was in believing that he could drive into NK (which he did) without incurring a Chinese response-- which was a mistake of massive proportions.

I'm not arguing that the defense of South Korea would be "easy"-- it would be bloody, and the civilian and military casualties would be enormous. BUT North Korea is incapable of sustaining themselves or projecting their power into South Korea for any length of time (the problem with being an aid-dependent state). Moreover, the ROK Army is *very* well trained-- not the Army you read about in your history books, but one of the top ten armies in the world, in terms of quality.

Yes, nK has nukes. But if Kim Jong Il used nukes in his invasion against the south, not only would he lose the whole point of his campaign (i.e., to seize the South's industrial capacity), he would become even more of an international pariah than he already is. Not even China would defend him during the counter-attack.

No, he knows that he can't win a war with the South, and THAT is why he hasn't done anything about it-- he's living the good life right now, why risk it? If you don't believe that, fine, but I think I'm a little bit closer to the truth on this one.

Posted by: Bobby at May 30, 2005 08:45 PM

We've broken the same non-proliferation treaty by resuming testing and experimenting, among other things, but it's okay, for us, right?

Bull with a capital "B." We have not broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NPT of 1970 did not commit the United States to refrain from testing or developing new nuclear weapons, but to work towards an eventual reduction or elimination of the number of weapons held, with no timetable specified. The NPT committed the non-nuclear-weapon signatory nations to refrain from developing nuclear weapons in return for technical assistance with developing non-weapon civilian nuclear applications. Get your facts straight.

Bobby is spot on about US military capabilities.

Posted by: Tully at May 30, 2005 09:04 PM

All this talk about "dealing with" Iran is becoming nauseating.

Our government is telling us that it has evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and that the UN security counsel needs to intervene because Iran is in breech of a treaty it agreed to. Uh, does this scenario seem the least bit familiar to anyone here?

How short short our collective memories are. Iran was once a peaceful country with a democratically elected parliamentary-styled government. It didn't hate the U.S., and it wasn't attempting to export a hateful fundamentalist ideology overseas.

And then the U.S. and the U.K. engineered a coup in 1953 that brought down the leader of that government (Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh) and installed the exhiled Shah as dictator--all because the government of Iran was moving to nationalize its oil. This needless meddling of our government did not make the U.S. very popular in the eyes of the Iranians. It's a portion of our history that the pro-war fanatics conveniently overlook--that our government was responsible for putting into power a dictator whose corrupt repressive regime advocated censorship and police-state tactics and persecuted religious dissidents. The Iranian Revolution that brought the Ayatollah to power was a direct result of the backlash against the Shah.

So, sorry, but all the talk about bringing freedom and democracy to Iran rings hollow to me. They had a democratic government, and our government decided to overthrow it. Will it ever down on the pro-war fanatics that perhaps it's our meddling in the affairs of other nations that is creating many of the problems around the world?

You can all talk to me about Non-Proliferation Treaties and Resolution 1441 all you want, but no one has ever given me a satisfactory explanation as to why one nation should be able to determine how the other nations of the world arm themselves. We're the only nation in the history of the world that has ever DETONATED a nuclear weapon on another nation, and yet we're threatening other countries for the mere DEVELOPMENT of such weapons. To call our foreign policy hypocritical would be an UNDERSTATEMENT.

Maybe I need to bit of educating regarding Non-Proliferation Treaties. I was under the impression that such treaties were like contracts, in which case, if either party does not uphold its end of the bargain, then the agreement is null and void. Do such treaties contain language spelling out that participants who fail to abide by the treaty are subject to military attack? Because if not, I'd sure like to know where people are deriving this "right" for our government to use military force (in any way, shape, or form) against Iran.

Posted by: nicrivera at May 31, 2005 12:57 AM

This needless meddling of our government did not make the U.S. very popular in the eyes of the Iranians. It's a portion of our history that the pro-war fanatics conveniently overlook...

So, are you saying that we intervened in the past to undermine democracies, therefore we shouldn't intervene now to support democracies. I would rather have a regime more commited to democratization rather than a political wedge issue, but the bottom line is that supporting democratization is better than not supporting democratization, with exceptions for illiberal democratization, even with the democratizer we have.

Posted by: Scott Smith at May 31, 2005 08:58 AM

Nic is slanting what happened in Iran in 1953, as does the Wikipedia article on Operation Ajax. The Iranian Parliament under Mossadegh stole ("nationalized") all of the production facilities of foreign oil companies (mostly British), and Mossadegh blackmailed his way back into the Prime Minister's slot with his own coup after being forced from office.

Pahlavi was the legal ruler, was NOT in exile, and Mossadegh attempted a second coup to eliminate the monarchy and consolidate total rule for himself by dissolving the Iranian Parliament. Pahlavi, the only person constitutionally outranking Mossadegh, fired him. (And had every legal right to do so.) Mossadegh refused to resign, and the British and American intelligence services supported the pro-monarchy forces in retaking control. Pahlavi left the country just ahead of Mossadegh's agents but was back inside of a week.

At the time, Iran was stuck between the British and the Russians. The socialist Mossadegh had instituted collectivism in agriculture and oil production during his brief de facto rule, and was heavily aligned with the local Communist factions, which were in turn under the influence of the KGB. Pahlavi returned the country to the Western sphere of influence (and the oil facilities to their builders) and later consolidated his own power by dissolving the multi-party system for one-party rule and by breaking up the larger estates of his rivals and distributing the land to small farmers. He also granted women voting franchise and instituted rigorous examinations for the clergy, which set the ayatollahs against him. The KGB contributed to undermining the government as well.

Our finest hour, no. But given the choice between the socialist Mossadegh and a Soviet satellite in Iran, or the Shah (who was indeed the legal monarch), we went with self-interest and the request of the British and the Shah (the legal sovereign) to assist. And given Mossadegh's attempt to dissolve the Parliament and overthrow the Shah, saying that we "overthrew a democracy" by assisting the legal ruler in overcoming a Hitler-style coup is more than just a little bit misleading.

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2005 09:46 AM

I think we're spot on in letting the European nations take the lead in trying to resolve this. Meanwhile, Iran is studying from Saddam Hussein's playbook, Running Laps Round the Mulberry Bush with the UN Security Council.

Let's let Europe wring their hands over this, and we can wait for them to come to us hat in hand before considering stepping in. How rich will the irony be when France and Germany bemoan Iran's flouting of UN resolutions? Pretty effing rich. If it happens that way. Kinda doubt it though.

Our stated policy is not to wait until the threat is imminent. So perhaps in the end we get recast in the international role of of impatient bad guys disrespectful of sovereignty, after Europe finishes reprising its Nero role of fiddling while Rome burns.

Hypocrisy? Yup. We have nukes, and we're strongly predisposed to not letting other nations acquire them, especially know hostiles. Where do we get this right? Folks, we've simply declared the right, and it comes from no more than that. That's the unvarnished truth. The question is how much of a problem you have with this.

And if you have a big problem with it, the next question is, how big a problem do you have with bellicose Islamic fundamentalist nations brandishing nukes? Personally, I have a much bigger problem with the latter, though I openly acknowledge the demerits of the former. I don't see a 3rd option. Negotiation to resolution? This works when both sides can negotiate in good faith. If you believe Iran's good faith goal is self-sufficent nuclear power, then negotiation maybe makes sense. But if you don't...then take note that the meter's running.

Posted by: bk at May 31, 2005 09:56 AM

Regarding treaties: North Korea withdrew from the NPT in January 2003. There is no doubt that they were in violation of the treaty for many years before that, and their non-compliance was a factor in their withdrawal. The Bush administration insisted on IAEA inspections as called for, and NK refused. Iran remains a signatory to the treaty, and is thus still bound by the agreement. Since 2003, Iran has been in violation of Article III of the treaty, which calls for inspections at will by the IAEA to insure compliance.

Nations can withdraw from the NPT at will by officially notifying the other signatory nations that it is doing so. Iran has not done so. The treaty contains no specific language relating to penalties for violations other than the withholding of Article IV assistance, but compliance is a factor considered by governments in general relations and assistance in other areas. NPT non-compliance was one of the issues the UN used in issuing sanctions against Iraq, was part of the legal basis for required WMD inspections, and was cited as one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was officially found by the IAEA to not be in compliance in 1991.

The only three non-signatory nations that are known to have nuclear weapons are India, Pakistan, and Israel.

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2005 10:08 AM

[quote]No, that wasn't the implication at all-- although I knew you would read it that way. [/quote]

If you knew I'd read it that way, why did you put it out there? That suggests you wanted it read that way, which is, frankly, how it was read.

[quote]The question was supposed to demonstrate that sometimes you don't necessarily have the moral high ground, and doing the right thing requires you to be a hypocrit.[/quote]

Sad but true, I agree. Sometimes doing what is necessary isn't always doing what is right, or even what we'd like to be right.

[quote]You conveniently avoided answering that question in favor of asking another. The question is: Are there instances when you don't have the moral high ground, but do something anyway? Or does not having the moral high ground automatically mean that you cannot act?[/quote]

This is an interesting question, as I'm sure you realize. I am no philosopher, and in a perfect world, no, a perosn or country could not act without the moral high ground, but this world is far from perfect. So, in my opinion, I would have to answer that, yes, sometimes (but not *all* times) you have to act without the moral high ground. These would be times when you have no choice but to act, or when not acting would result in a greater disaster. Of course, part of acting is accepting the consequences of your actions. This is what most people have problems with.

[quote] You said that our commitment in Iraq had caused us to have "precious little" that we could do about Iran-- I was pointing out that you are WRONG. Again, I'm not arguing for a Thunder Run-- in fact I even argued why we don't want to do it. But to say we're INCAPABLE of it is downright propaganda. We're VERY capable.[/quote]

You're absolutely right. The mistake was mine alone in interpretation. I *can* kill my coworker, but I don't, for myriad reasons, so I do tend to equate that with not being able to, although, strictly speaking, I can. (or at least try. She's feisty, she might kill me instead.)

However, having said that, it could be argued that, any action (limited or otherwise) that we took, would have varying degrees of success. That, also, has to be taken into consideration before acting. Acting for acting's sake isn't a solution.

[quote]Your reading of history is spurious, at best. General MacArthur *never* argued that the ROKs were capable of their own defense, nor did he think that if the North attacked it would go altogether easily. [/quote]

I never meant to imply that General MacArthur said as much, only that, were he alive today, the same attitude you seemed to efface would be one he would mimic, or vice versa. My readings of history are really both irrelevant, and none of your business, but thanks all the same for attempting to enlighten me.

Whether or not he thought, or didn't think, anything, is redundant as I am no mindreader, let alone of the dead, and he is best remembered (outside of WWII) for words, actions, and deeds after the North invaded, as opposed to before.

[quote]I'm not arguing that the defense of South Korea would be "easy"-- [/quote]

[quote][quote]Trust me, if Kim Jong Il does anything, he's going to get his initial penetration, yes, and then find his armies being rolled up by a South Korean counter-attack over the next few weeks.[/quote][/quote]

Really? Sounds like the same rhetoric, or to use your word, propaganda, we heard before going into Iraq.

[quote]-it would be bloody, and the civilian and military casualties would be enormous. BUT North Korea is incapable of sustaining themselves or projecting their power into South Korea for any length of time (the problem with being an aid-dependent state)[/quote].

On this we agree. I never once said Kim Jung Il would succeed, all I said was I was afraid he would try. I'm looking at the loss of life, thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, and that's not counting inevitable American involvement, and you're looking at the big picture. Yeah, he could attack, but he'd lose.

[quote]Moreover, the ROK Army is *very* well trained-- not the Army you read about in your history books, but one of the top ten armies in the world, in terms of quality.[/quote]

Again, you're making assumptions here about my education, but I understand. Question, because I don't know the answer, if the ROK ranks in the top ten, where does the DPRK Army rank? Just curious.

[quote]Yes, nK has nukes. But if Kim Jong Il used nukes in his invasion against the south, not only would he lose the whole point of his campaign (i.e., to seize the South's industrial capacity), he would become even more of an international pariah than he already is. Not even China would defend him during the counter-attack.[/quote]

I am hardly one to ascribe motivation and action to madmen, so I can't really say what he would do, only that he has the capability of doing it. Goes back to our earlier debates about can and should.

But you raise an interesting point which I thought about, but never brought up. China. They are, ultimately, the wild card in this game. They certainly don't want a nuclear penninsula, but on the other hand, they don't want us in their sphere of influence, as they see it. So what do they do? I can't say, I can guess, and so can you, but that's all they are, at best, educated guesses.

[quote]No, he knows that he can't win a war with the South, and THAT is why he hasn't done anything about it-- he's living the good life right now, why risk it?[/quote]

So my piece of mind rests on the notion that a small little half mad man has the good life? Saddam Hussein had the good life, too, but he was a supposed threat to us. I can't be faulted for saying that I would feel more comfortable, in regards to North Korea, if our military was not tied up in Iraq.

[quote]If you don't believe that, fine, but I think I'm a little bit closer to the truth on this one.[/quote]

I sincerely hope so.

Posted by: Ryan at May 31, 2005 04:21 PM

Well. Quotes didn't work out the way I wanted. Live and learn.

Tully, I appreciate you calling me on that.

"We have not broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NPT of 1970 did not commit the United States to refrain from testing or developing new nuclear weapons"

Is absolutely correct, and made me relook at my assumptions. So I went and did some research.

The 1985 NPT Conference ended with a Final Document [not to be confused with Resolution]that contained language in regards to a nuclear test ban moratorium and a nuclear arms freeze. This document was *not* voted on.

On 12/16/93, the General Assembly of the UN adopted resolution 48/70, which would be a Complete Test Ban Treaty.

On 9/10/96 the General Assembly voted on the Complete Nuclear Test Ban Treaty [CTBT] and voted in favor of it, 158 to 3, with 5 absentees. I have yet to find out how the US voted, if you know, I would appreciate the information, as it would be relevant, wouldn't you say?

However we voted, though, on 9/24/96, the US signed the CTBT.

And so, while I got the treaty wrong, my assumption that we were in violation of *a* treaty for nuclear tests proved correct.

So, I apologize for being right, but having my facts wrong.

"Get your facts straight."

I will, thankyou.

"Bobby is spot on about US military capabilities."

Nifty.

Posted by: Ryan at May 31, 2005 04:30 PM

I think we may be speaking different languages here, so in an effort to get back on target:

If the point of this sidebar discussion is that the War in Iraq has affected our ability to *defend* the Korean Peninsula, the answer is a qualified "False." The Korean Theater of Operations (KTO) war plans are heavily predicated upon the use of indigenous ROK forces (*about* 98% South Korean). Those US forces that are needed, primarily come from combat multipliers (like the US Air Force and Naval minesweepers) who are largely "sitting out" the War in Iraq. So the one has *minimal* impact upon the other. Ditto for the next phase of counter-attack/offensive operations into North Korea (*if* the South Korean leadership deemed that suitable). Now just because the campaign would be ROK intensive or that the timeline would be a matter of weeks and months (and not months and years) does not necessarily mean that it would be *easy*: the military and civilian casualties would be *brutal* (similar to what we encountered in our own Civil War), but the ROK Army (supported by superior air power) is structured in such a manner as to fight quickly and fight hard.

Phase three type operations-- counter-insurgency (COIN), stability and support operations (SASO), and civil-military operations (CMO)-- would be a totally different story. Again, the ROKs are going to conduct the vast preponderance of these missions, but their capability to subdue any nK insurgents and to win the hearts and minds of the nK people is anyone's guess. The ROK Army is *not* structured for those kinds of operations (well, they do have robust CMO assets, but I'm talking about the uncoventional warfare part). Again, however, this would require a very minimal US presence.

If the point of this sidebar is that the War in Iraq has affected our military options in Iran, the answer is a qualified "True." Certainly, US forces could conduct another Thunder Run and destroy Iran's *conventional* military capability as well as their nuclear facilities. What would come after *that* is a totally different story-- we would not have the combat power to occupy Iran, so my guess is that we'd withdraw, the regime would collapse, and local power brokers would arise to fight amongst each other (with numerous terrorist organizations moving in to set up camp a la post-Najibullah Afghanistan). The anarchy would make "Iran" (which would technically not even exist as a state) completely unstable, and its oil industry would probably grind to a halt-- having a major impact on the global economy, no doubt. Additionally, we'd probably inflame the rest of the Islamic world which might have second and third order effects in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, possibly even toppling their regimes for Islamist jihadists. So we could do it, yes, and Iran would cease to be a nuclear threat, yes, but the costs would be so absolutely enormous, that *again* I would not recommend it.

In answer to your question, it's hard to say how good the DPRK military is. Let me first say that what they lack in quality, they make up in sheer quantity: a one million man Army with reserves of 4.7 million (this would constitute more than 25% of their total population, and no country in the history of the world has ever successfully mobilized that percentage of their forces as quickly as they claim they can, so I personally doubt they can do it-- others disagree with me, however). We do know that they don't have the money to train as a combined arms team (few countries do), so it's not likely they would be able to maneuver all that effectively. But they would likely be able to employ some systems-- their artillery, chemical weapons, and special purpose forces (SPF), for example-- very, *very* well. Desert Storm obviously demonstrated that quantity is no substitute for quality, but we're dealing with such a closed society that we don't know if they would fight hard, simply collapse, or "go to ground" and re-surface as guerrillas. So, unfortunately, there is no simple answer there. The "good" news for Americans, of course, is that our Korean allies would be baring the brunt of the burden; we would be there only in support. But that's not really good news for the Koreans...

In any case, I'm sorry you see everything I say as propaganda. I like to think of myself as an independent thinker whose not afraid to (and often does) buck the party-line. But you don't know anything about me, so I guess it's to be expected that you hear what I say in the context of a loyalist, and not an independent. That's too bad.

Posted by: Bobby at May 31, 2005 06:00 PM

Actually, I never meant to imply that any analysis of yours was propaganda. I simply said 'propaganda was your word, not mine' because you previously accused me of spouting it, as opposed to having an informed opinion of my own. I was remiss in thinking, if not outright accusing, you of the same. For that, I apologize.

You're obviously well informed, more so than me, in regards to the technical aspects of operations on the Korean Penninsula.

I don't doubt, I never doubted, that *ultimately* any dreams North Korea may have of a forced unification would fail.

I suppose I was trying to sum up, originally, in my statement of fear of Kim Jung Il that he might see this [1. Our involvement in Iraq 2. Our new "preemptive" strategy] as reason to push south, and thus begin the great loss of life that I believe could be avoided if we can just contain North Korea until Kim Jung Il is gone. I certainly didn't mean for the discussion to lose it's focus on Iran, and I'd wager you didn't, either.

At any rate, I don't know enough about you to assume anything, let alone your own political philosophies or tendencies. I would be willing to wager that you have, or are, serving, or that you're just an avid military history buff. In either case, I respect that, and your opinion, which I'm willing to also wager, isn't really that far off from mine, if at all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in regards to Iran, you were saying there are things we *can* do, which is absolutely true, and I was saying, and I think you were agreeing, that there are things we *shouldn't* do.

So, to return to the conversation as a whole, if we take off the table all the things in Iran that we *shouldn't* do, i.e. remove their current government without a replacement, what is there that we *can* do and *should* do, where Iran is concerned?

That, as the saying goes, is the question.

Posted by: Ryan at May 31, 2005 06:31 PM

And so, while I got the treaty wrong, my assumption that we were in violation of *a* treaty for nuclear tests proved correct...So, I apologize for being right, but having my facts wrong.

Your assumption is still wrong. To the best of my knowledge we are not in violation of any nuclear weapons treaty with any existing nation. I'd welcome any spcific info that this is wrong, but I don't know of any.

While Madeline Albright "signed" the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty on behalf of Clinton as United States Ambasador to the United Nations, the U.S. Senate rejected ratification of the treaty in 1999. As you know, Senate ratification is Constitutionally required for the U.S. to actually be bound by treaties. (That darned "advice and consent" thing, but in a different context.)

Therefore, the CNTBT has never applied to the United States, and it is thus impossible for us to be in violation of it.

Posted by: Tully at May 31, 2005 06:41 PM

Hmmm...

You might just have me. Well, looks like I'll have to pull a Newsweek and retract, if not the whole reply, than at least all bits pertaining to being in violation of Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

To you, I say, jolly good show, or touche, or whatever saying best fits.

I really, really, hate being wrong, darn it all.

Posted by: Ryan at May 31, 2005 06:45 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in regards to Iran, you were saying there are things we *can* do, which is absolutely true, and I was saying, and I think you were agreeing, that there are things we *shouldn't* do.

Yup.

So, to return to the conversation as a whole, if we take off the table all the things in Iran that we *shouldn't* do, i.e. remove their current government without a replacement, what is there that we *can* do and *should* do, where Iran is concerned?

Brother, I wish I knew. I mean, if we're not willing to accept the consequences of simply destroying the Iranian regime, exiting, and leaving behind anarchy and chaos (which I think we both agree is not a good idea), then we'd have to come up with an occupation force from somewhere. We won't get it internally, so I'd guess some of our options would be: (a) Europe coughs up a force (highly unlikely-- they're having trouble getting their force into the safer regions of Afghanistan, which they committed to more than a year ago); (b) we forge together a polyglot Coalition (more likely, but still pretty far-fetched-- where would it come from? The Saudis proposed [and US rejected] Muslim Corps for Iraq? That would have serious problems of its own); (c) we turn a "blind eye" to an Israeli strike to destroy the nuclear facilities; or (d) we accept that there's no military "solution."

Those first three are about the only military "solutions" I can think of, and none of them are really very good. But then neither is a nuclear-armed Iran. Short of a miracle (i.e., some type of "velvet revolution" that overthrows the mullahs, sweeps into power, and chooses to end their nuclear program-- a la the ANC and South Africa), I think we're going to be in a really bad fix if someone doesn't think out of the box and figure out what to do.

Posted by: Bobby at May 31, 2005 10:43 PM

And there lies the dilemma.

Is an Iran ruled by anarchy better than an Iran with nuclear capability? If you say yes, then you have to ask, are the effects an Iran in anarchy has on the region as a whole better than an Iran with nuclear capability? I don't know. No one does. Although everyone knows a nuclear Iran is a very, very, bad thing.

This must be what it's like when the girl you want to take the dance asks you after you've already asked your second choice and she said yes. If we weren't bogged down in Iraq...

"If's..." They'll get you every time. I suppose the neocons were so certain that we would be finished with Iraq by now that they could, if they had to, turn their attention to Iran. Unfortunately for the whole region, if not the whole world, this was something else they were wrong on.

Posted by: Ryan at June 1, 2005 12:08 AM

Same reason we're not bound by the Kyoto Protocols--no Senate ratification. What can I say, Ryan? Inaccuracy in detail annoys me (especially when I catch myself doing it, of course). But it's so pervasively widespread in the political culture that it's hard to avoid.

But completely with you on your first three paragraphs above, and a bit of the fourth. And Bobby's post above it. We could kick Iran's butt in the short run, but we don't have the immediately available resources to follow through long-run. Bad Idea without massive allied support. And the SK army would bear the brunt of an NK assault (and are capable of it), but despite their "reserve" numbers NK probably lacks the resources for a sustained military effort against combined SK/US forces without substantial outside assistance. Which could only come from the Chinese, who don't seem overly inclined.

Posted by: Tully at June 1, 2005 12:58 AM

Yeah, there's definitely a cost-benefit analysis that needs to be done to calculate whether it's better to have an Iranian "hollow state" where terrorists will be able to establish their sanctuary (not to mention the second- and third-order effects of possibly causing the Abdullah or Musharraf regimes to "go under"... Musharraf being the scary one, of course, because then you'd get a nuclear jihadist Pakistan...) or a nuclear-armed Islamist Iran. My guess is that we'll choose the latter, since a nuclear-armed Iran could always go through an internal revolution that could lead to a more rational, more liberal democratic state. But that's for others with a much larger pay grade than mine to decide.

What I generally get from the Chinese Foreign Area Officers, speaking open source here, of course, is that Chinese involvement would likely be a function of who started the war and whether or not Pyongyang uses chemical or nuclear weapons (which would likely to galvanize international opinion against them). After that, they would surely press for a ceasefire to try and prevent the collapse of the Pyongyang regime, which is why South Korea would have to counter quickly in order to present them with a fait accompli. After that, of course, a reunified Korea would probably disappear for a generation while they try to integrate their northern cousins into the mainstream fold (because if you think Germany had trouble with the East Germans... oh, boy, will this be exciting).

Posted by: Bobby at June 1, 2005 02:03 AM

Just to be clear, I was assuming that NK would be the aggressor. If SK was the aggressor, no bets from me. The Chinese will do what they think is best for them, of course. They don't seem all that wild about Kim having nukes right there on their border, or about the potential flood of refugees they might face. (I will NOT quote Bret Harte, I will NOT quote Bret Harte...)

Posted by: Tully at June 1, 2005 11:40 AM

Hmmmm.

Following that logic, that China's ultimate participation in any Korean war rests solely on whether NK is the attacker or the defender, then I have to readjust my thinking of Kim Jung Il.

He might just be a genuis, and he might be more excited about the notion of "preemptive war" than Bush himself.

Following that notion, I'd suggest a little reverse psychology with him, because everytime we tell him *not* to do something, he's just more encouraged to do it, to push us [and our allies, such as they are] into attacking him.

This puts us in a bind. He can build and build his nuclear arsenal, without fear of us attacking, and then, when his stockpile is so large that we absolutely have to attack? What happens then?

Who blinks first?

[Tully- Correct me if I'm wrong, but unlike the CTBT which had Clinton support, the Kyoto Accords never even got that far, i.e. any support of the executive, true?]

Posted by: Ryan at June 1, 2005 02:39 PM

Kinda. The Kyoto Protocols are actually an amendment to an existing treaty, the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change. We're bound by that treaty (kinda-see below*) but not by the amendments. Clinton-Gore supported the Kyoto Protocols, and Gore "signed" them on behalf of the U.S., but they've never been submitted to the Senate for ratification, and even before the "signing" the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (95-0!) made clear that they would not be ratified if submitted.

[*--The 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change itself contains no mandates on individual nations and has no enforcement provisions, so it's not really legally binding either.]

Posted by: Tully at June 1, 2005 03:41 PM

Tully,

I'm slanting what happened in 1953? Are you denying my assertion that the U.S. government assisted in the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, or do you merely not like the way that I (and Wikipedia) tell it?

Mossadegh's attempt to nationalize the nation's oil was a move that was backed by the people of his country. I'm not here to defend the policy of nationalizing any industry, but if you can condemn Mossadegh for stealing these companies from the British, perhaps you'd like to be even-handed and condemn the British for the means by which they came across this oil in the first place--by invading and occupying Iran.

What the British did doesn't pardon what Mossadegh for what he did. Nationalization of an industry is indeed nothing more than state-sanctioned stealing. And Mossadegh, by his actions, was clearly a socialist. But he was DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED . . . TWICE! And the U.S. had absolute NO RIGHT to assist in his overthrow.

As to the Shah. Do you know why he was so willing to help the British? Could it be that he was nothing more than puppet for the British so that they could continue exploiting the resources of Iran? Do you know how the Shah originally came to power? He was made Shah after the British invaded Iran in the 1940's (with the help of the USSR), overthrew the former Shah, and drove him into exile.

You claim that it was Mossadegh who attempted a coup against the Shah? Let's put this all into historical context:

The Shah was installed by the British in the 1940's after they overthrew his father, the former Shah (who himself had come to power by means of a military coup). At about this time, Mossadegh was ELECTED to parliament for the second time. The Iranian Parliament voted to nationalize Iran's Oil industry in 1951, shortly after the assasination of the former Prime Minister. Mossadegh was elected as prime minister by the Iranian Parliament, and shortly afterward, he moved to enforce the Oil Nationalization Bill that parliament had passed. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh pushed for numerous socialist reforms and began to develop ties with the communist Tudeh Party.

The decision to overthrown Mossadegh was made by the British in the fall of 1952 (NINE MONTHS BEFORE OPERATION AJAX). To do this, the British government petitioned the help of the Truman administration, and later the Eisenhower administration. In April of 1953, the CIA secretly began using U.S. taxpayer money to fund propaganda against Mossadegh, in the hopes of bringing down the Prime Minister. It was only AFTER the U.S. began to direct its propaganda campaign and successfully incited violence the prime minister that Mossadegh dissolved the Iranian Parliament (through a rigged referendum). The coup against the Shah that you talk about occurred only AFTER the U.S. had already committed the money and the manpower to overthrow Mossadegh. Mossadegh's overthrow was successfully implemented in August of 1953 during Operation Ajax, during which time, members of the CIA disguised themselves as Mossadegh supporters and incited mobs and rioting that claimed the lives of hundreds of Iranians (both pro-Shah and pro-Mossadegh).

The fact that it was the height of the cold war and our government wanted a buffer state against the Soviet Union means nothing to me, Tully. NOTHING!

To overthrow a democratically elected government that posed no threat to us was wrong.

To use taxpayer money to spread lies and propaganda among the Iranian people was wrong.

To incite violence that led to the deaths of hundreds of Iranians was wrong.

To support a repressive dictator just because he was "pro-U.S." and "anticommunist" was wrong.

And if anyone honestly thinks that what our government did in 1953 had nothing to do with the Iranian Revolution that brought to power the very fundamentalist muslim extremists that control the Iranian government today, they are being hopelessly naive.

My whole point in posting was not to make the argument that Mossadegh was a great guy. He wasn't. But using the benefit of hindsight, we can clearly see that our intervention in 1953 was a complete failure. We overthrew a socialist, and what did we get? More than twenty years of a repressive dictator (which we helped put in power and continued to support afterward).

Maybe, just maybe, there's something to be learned from that little episode. And perhaps that lesson is that when our government uses violent means to overthrow foreign governments or leaders that our government doesn't like, more often than not, it ends up supporting dictators that are just as bad, if not worse, than the ones our government worked so hard to overthrow.

Posted by: nrivera at June 2, 2005 10:08 PM

I said it wasn't our finest hour, nic, but that doesn't change the facts. Mossadegh was a slimy piece of work, a wannabe dictator, and there was nothing pretty about Operation Ajax. But Mossadegh was NOT an elected public official at the time of the coup, nor at ANY time during Operation Ajax. An at no time during Operation Ajax was Pahlavi NOT the legal head of state of Iran under the Iranian Constitution. Mossadegh had resigned his position as prime minister, then blackmailed his way back into office.

He seized control of parts of the military through a violent purge and the help of Parliament, then payed Parliament back with a rigged national referendum that dissolved the (democratically elected!) body, but Parliament would not abide by the rigged vote. At which point Mossadegh suspended the Parliament and extended his "emergency" powers by fiat to essentially become dictator.

And when push came to shove, he was fired (legally) by the Shah, as provided for in the Iranian Constitution. He refused to budge and declared he would appoint himself President. But his promised reforms had never materialized, the ayatollahs were getting wary of him because of the communist influences, and the KGB was pulling back their support in reaction to British and American operations. In the end the army backed the Shah, and Mossadegh was arrested. Pahlavi's so-called "exile" lasted four days total.

Operation Ajax from start to finish all happened after Mossadegh bullied his way back into power following his initial resignation. He was an appointed official, not an elected one, and he did his damndest to stamp out the elected government and vest sole power in himself. And from then on in, the closest he came to "democracy" was that rigged election to dissolve Parliament. So yes, I call that line about the UK and US overthrowing a "democratically elected" government in Iran a load of high-octane Steer Manure.

That "democratically elected government" wasn't overthrown by us. It was overthrown by Mossadegh, whom we subsequently helped overthrow. As the facts clearly show, regardless of the hero-worship he is accorded by some on the left.

Posted by: Tully at June 3, 2005 12:06 PM

Let's not have another North Korea in our hands, where we have a country that does not care about its sanctions or political status in the world.

Let's face it, economic sanctions and economic bonuses and packages are not working in countries controlled by dictatorships and/or extremists.

The only way for Iran and North Korea to be controlled is to replace their leadership and replace it with democratic elections.

Have you ever noticed that the only countries we ever have problems with don't have democratic elections?

- Syria, North Korea, China, Iran

c2k
c2k cheap web hosting

Posted by: c2k at June 5, 2005 06:07 PM