The drumbeat of war grows louder. Comes now Alan Kuperman – a Texas academic – on the editorial pages of the New York Times laying out the case for US military action against Iran:
There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran
By ALAN J. KUPERMAN
Published: December 23, 2009PRESIDENT OBAMA should not lament but sigh in relief that Iran has rejected his nuclear deal, which was ill conceived from the start. Under the deal, which was formally offered through the United Nations, Iran was to surrender some 2,600 pounds of lightly enriched uranium (some three-quarters of its known stockpile) to Russia, and the next year get back a supply of uranium fuel sufficient to run its Tehran research reactor for three decades. The proposal did not require Iran to halt its enrichment program, despite several United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding such a moratorium.
Iran was thus to be rewarded with much-coveted reactor fuel despite violating international law. Within a year, or sooner in light of its expanding enrichment program, Iran would almost certainly have replenished and augmented its stockpile of enriched uranium, nullifying any ostensible nonproliferation benefit of the deal.
Moreover, by providing reactor fuel, the plan would have fostered proliferation in two ways. First, Iran could have continued operating its research reactor, which has helped train Iranian scientists in weapons techniques like plutonium separation. (Yes, as Iran likes to point out, the reactor also produces medical isotopes. But those can be purchased commercially from abroad, as most countries do, including the United States.) Absent the deal, Iran’s reactor will likely run out of fuel within two years, and only a half-dozen countries are able to supply fresh fuel for it. This creates significant international leverage over Iran, which should be used to compel it to halt its enrichment program.
The entire matter stinks with half- measures and out and out lies by Kuperman and the Establishment by association, which has its imprimatur stamped all over this document. Kuperman cannot bear but acknowledge the Iran government’s sovereignty over its own country. Kuperman plays as Macbeth’s bloody wife, Obama’s Douglas Feith.
In addition, the vast surplus of higher-enriched fuel Iran was to get under the deal would have permitted some to be diverted to its bomb program. Indeed, many experts believe that the uranium in foreign-provided fuel would be easier to enrich to weapons grade because Iran’s uranium contains impurities. Obama administration officials had claimed that delivering uranium in the form of fabricated fuel would prevent further enrichment for weapons, but this is false. Separating uranium from fuel elements so that it can be enriched further is a straightforward engineering task requiring at most a few weeks.
Thus, had the deal gone through, Iran could have benefited from a head start toward making weapons-grade 90 percent-enriched uranium (meaning that 90 percent of its makeup is the fissile isotope U-235) by starting with purified 20 percent-enriched uranium rather than its own weaker, contaminated stuff.
This raises a question: if the deal would have aided Iran’s bomb program, why did the United States propose it, and Iran reject it? The main explanation on both sides is domestic politics. President Obama wanted to blunt Republican criticism that his multilateral approach was failing to stem Iran’s nuclear program. The deal would have permitted him to claim, for a year or so, that he had defused the crisis by depriving Iran of sufficient enriched uranium to start a crash program to build one bomb.
But in reality no one ever expected Iran to do that, because such a headlong sprint is the one step most likely to provoke an international military response that could cripple the bomb program before it reaches fruition. Iran is far more likely to engage in “salami slicing” — a series of violations each too small to provoke retaliation, but that together will give it a nuclear arsenal. For example, while Iran permits international inspections at its declared enrichment plant at Natanz, it ignores United Nations demands that it close the plant, where it gains the expertise needed to produce weapons-grade uranium at other secret facilities like the nascent one recently uncovered near Qom.
In sum, the proposal would not have averted proliferation in the short run, because that risk always was low, but instead would have fostered it in the long run — a classic example of domestic politics undermining national security.
Tehran’s rejection of the deal was likewise propelled by domestic politics — including last June’s fraudulent elections and longstanding fears of Western manipulation. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad initially embraced the deal because he realized it aided Iran’s bomb program. But his domestic political opponents, whom he has tried to label as foreign agents, turned the tables by accusing him of surrendering Iran’s patrimony to the West.
So far there is no acknowledgement of the West’s dependence on Iranian petroleum by Kuperman, of Iran’s dependence on foreign hard currency, refined petroleum products or agricultural goods. By narrowing the argument Kuperman only leaves one possible outcome. This is more of the same intellectual dishonesty on the part of the Establishment as a whole … and the feckless and ironic Obama regime in particular.
This raises a question: if the deal would have aided Iran’s bomb program, why did the United States propose it, and Iran reject it? The main explanation on both sides is domestic politics. President Obama wanted to blunt Republican criticism that his multilateral approach was failing to stem Iran’s nuclear program. The deal would have permitted him to claim, for a year or so, that he had defused the crisis by depriving Iran of sufficient enriched uranium to start a crash program to build one bomb. But in reality no one ever expected Iran to do that, because such a headlong sprint is the one step most likely to provoke an international military response that could cripple the bomb program before it reaches fruition. Iran is far more likely to engage in “salami slicing” — a series of violations each too small to provoke retaliation, but that together will give it a nuclear arsenal. For example, while Iran permits international inspections at its declared enrichment plant at Natanz, it ignores United Nations demands that it close the plant, where it gains the expertise needed to produce weapons-grade uranium at other secret facilities like the nascent one recently uncovered near Qom.In sum, the proposal would not have averted proliferation in the short run, because risk always was low, but instead would have fostered it in the long run — a classic example of domestic politics undermining national security.
Kuperman lays out the one- dimensional case with academic thoroughness. Faced with Iranian intransigence there can be only one ‘Final Solution’.
Tehran’s rejection of the original proposal is revealing. It shows that Iran, for domestic political reasons, cannot make even temporary concessions on its bomb program, regardless of incentives or sanctions. Since peaceful carrots and sticks cannot work, and an invasion would be foolhardy, the United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
The risks of acquiescence are obvious. Iran supplies Islamist terrorist groups in violation of international embargoes. Even President Ahmadinejad’s domestic opponents support this weapons traffic. If Iran acquired a nuclear arsenal, the risks would simply be too great that it could become a neighborhood bully or provide terrorists with the ultimate weapon, an atomic bomb.
As for knocking out its nuclear plants, admittedly, aerial bombing might not work. Some Iranian facilities are buried too deeply to destroy from the air. There may also be sites that American intelligence is unaware of. And military action could backfire in various ways, including by undermining Iran’s political opposition, accelerating the bomb program or provoking retaliation against American forces and allies in the region.
I mean, what can a poor boy do, but play in a rock and roll band? The West has tried stupid diplomacy, there are no other choices there is no other choice, right?
As for the risk of military strikes undermining Iran’s opposition, history suggests that the effect would be temporary. For example, NATO’s 1999 air campaign against Yugoslavia briefly bolstered support for President Slobodan Milosevic, but a democratic opposition ousted him the next year.
Yes, Iran could retaliate by aiding America’s opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it does that anyway. Iran’s leaders are discouraged from taking more aggressive action against United States forces — and should continue to be — by the fear of provoking a stronger American counter-escalation. If nothing else, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the United States military can oust regimes in weeks if it wants to.
Incentives and sanctions will not work, but air strikes could degrade and deter Iran’s bomb program at relatively little cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try. They should be precision attacks, aimed only at nuclear facilities, to remind Iran of the many other valuable sites that could be bombed if it were foolish enough to retaliate.
The final question is, who should launch the air strikes? Israel has shown an eagerness to do so if Iran does not stop enriching uranium, and some hawks in Washington favor letting Israel do the dirty work to avoid fueling anti-Americanism in the Islamic world.
But there are three compelling reasons that the United States itself should carry out the bombings. First, the Pentagon’s weapons are better than Israel’s at destroying buried facilities. Second, unlike Israel’s relatively small air force, the United States military can discourage Iranian retaliation by threatening to expand the bombing campaign. (Yes, Israel could implicitly threaten nuclear counter-retaliation, but Iran might not perceive that as credible.) Finally, because the American military has global reach, air strikes against Iran would be a strong warning to other would-be proliferators.
This is the Obama administration’s apologia for war. The Bush/Cheney- derived strategy is to identify vulnerable petro- states, destabilize them, insert confused or pliant puppet regimes and allow for oil reserves to flood the petro- market by the magic of free- market capitalism. This is supposed to drive down costs. This US isn’t trying to create representative governments and moderate democracies, it wants more bankrupt UKs, stupidly selling national resources on the cheap. Iraq is somewhat down the road in this process. Venezuela stands at the threshold. Iran is cornered by American force on its Western and Northern borders. Theoretically dumping the three countries’ reserves to the petro- market all at once could theoretically drop the dollar price below the magic $35 a barrel for a short period of time. This would allow for the non- negotiable consumer- driven lifestyle to shift from the ‘moribund’ gear into overdrive.
This is why there is no coherent anti- war or anti- adventure opposition. The natural opponents are as petro- dependent as the hawks! There are no Daniel Berrigans because they all drive Hummers. They all live in the suburbs. They all eat greasy hamburgers and pizza, watch large screen televisions and fly on vacations. Almost every American and the rest of the world that aspires to be like America is compromised.
The West has put itself into a corner from which it cannot escape. The strategy it has chosen is being broken upon the wheel of the time and cost required to put it into effect. To develop crude production sufficient to justify the overall expense will require years and funds. This time interval would exist even without any military resistance. The plan is constrained by geology and oil production metrics. The US assumes there are large, cheaply developed oil reserves. Instead, realism suggests the US sets about to drain dry wells. “Drill, Baby, drill” is set against a post- Peak Oil backdrop. Bombers cannot put oil onto the ground any more than they can compel people to take out sub- prime mortgages.
A military attack represents an insider short against market capitalism, itself! It is an admission of commerce’s failure.
The appearance of this Times article indicates the administration is prepared to act; it is the fact of the article that matters more than what Kuperman proposes. Its appearance forecloses alternative discussions. The decisions look to have been made. It’s Hank Paulson sandbagging Congress all over again.
It is hard to see how this adventure would benefit the US, which has an unsupportable petro infrastructure at all but the lowest price level. Starting from a lower base, China can absorb any added production faster than can the US. The demand – the desire for fuel that exceeds the actual consumption – is greater in developing nations than in the mature Western economies which are belatedly embracing conservation.
Iran will not sit silently as its facilities are subjected to a bombing campaign. Most of the Middle East’s oil traffic passes the Straits of Hormuz. An aggressive Iranian campaign can sink a few tankers and restrict the all important flow. Oil @ $150 a barrel causes a US- grand mal economic seizure. Meanwhile, Iran can still sell some oil – and nuclear technology – and offset with increased per unit income the loss of oil volume. The US cannot sustain high prices and maintain its current form of economy.
$150 oil would represent a significant shortage which would be oil left in the ground in US allied countries such as Saudia and Kuwait … and Iraq! What keeps the lid on in that country is not American military might but the flow of western cash. Cut the cash and the Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites are at each others throats, again.
More unintended and un- considered consequences emerge: In the US, the outcome would likely be fuel rationing. Acute shortages of food and other essentials might appear, depending on the level of preparedness and the ability of authorities to improvise. The current pseudo- economic recovery would be torpedoed. The US dollar would become very valuable in a world- wide flight to safety. Countries with debt service issues would be under severe strains as dollars would become scarce as unicorns. The sovereign debt dominoes would start to topple. The bombs would fall in Iran but explode in Greece, Spain, Ireland, Saudi Arabia and Eastern Europe.
By attempting to avoid conservation, the Obama administration would be ‘backed into’ a conservation regime. The hard dollar would render most of the claims against the shrinking productive enterprise in this country uncollectable. Banks would fail. The next leg of deleveraging would begin. With the Federal Reserve almost fully committed to support conditions ex- liquidity runs, it is hard to see what the Fed could do to prevent these runs should they materialize.
An attack on Iran would indicate the Administration knows our economic problem is really an energy problem. It would suggest the Establishment is intellectually bankrupt – brain dead.
There are many more ways to ‘Stop Iran’ and solve the problem. One is a large – plus three dollar per gallon – USA gasoline tax. This would be the initial step in a series of fuel tax increases. the goal would be to obtain fuel cost parity with the Euro- zone and Japan in retail fuel price. This would immediately cut consumption and lower demand for crude oil. This would starve Iran of funds. To keep China from ‘laundering’ Iranian fuel into Chinese goods and exporting said laundered fuel here, Chinese goods could be subject to the same retail fuel tax in the form of a value- added import duty. The outcome of this would be to reduce consumption. Nuclear development is expensive and Iran’s government is not popular. Cutting Iranian government income would have consequences.
A bombing campaign would rally support for the Iranian government.
A heavy fuel tax would serve notice to OPEC that the US was serious about seizing control over its own energy destiny. It would also act to re-balance US/China trade and currency flows. Conservation would take carbon pressure off the atmosphere. China ‘growth’ would falter. Cutting China growth would put a governor on China fuel demands as well, adding downward pressure on oil prices and on the Iranian government. The childish refusal of the US to conserve is the leading reason the idiocy of a military adventure is even being considered, the reason Iran has the means to construct nuclear facilities in the first place.
The second tactic would be to sanction banks that do business with Iran. Iran needs hard currency and it obtains it largely through Japanese and French banks. The ‘CUTD’ (Currently Useless Treasury Department) can sanction these banks and by doing so freeze/seize Iranian assets indirectly. Banks have more commerce with the US than they do with Iran, for any legitimate bank this would be a simple choice. Once the Iranian government ‘reforms’ after the resulting funding crisis, the banking strictures can be lifted.
A third tactic would label OPEC as a criminal organization, like the Mafia. Deprived of legitimacy, that organization would become less effective as a monopoly, Iran would be marginalized, both among its own customers as well as among the other large producers. OPEC gives the current Iranian government a cloak of legitimacy that it cannot earn on its own merits.
From a practical standpoint, making OPEC a crime ring would allow the customers to freeze assets and fragment producer coherence.
Another tactic would halt gasoline exports to Iran. This would effect the middle class of that country who are partially mollified against government oppression by inexpensive, subsidized gas. Iran could maintain the subsidies at blanching levels of cost or eliminate them and lose what tatters of popular support remaining to it.
Any bombing campaign against Iran looks to be long and expensive. Iran will cut enough aggregate oil exports to cause the West economic pain. It will attack Persian Gulf shipping and attack US ships. The risk premium is unknown and the beneficiary will be Iran, the US won’t attack any tankers and the Iranians won’t attack any Iranian tankers! If Iranian commanders are bright enough to go to Best Buy and purchase an Internet computer. They will then go to Wikipedia they can discover how to defeat the Americans and sink all their ships:
Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) was a major wargame exercise conducted by the United States armed forces in mid-2002, likely the largest such exercise in history. The exercise,which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost $250 million, involved both live exercises and computer simulations. MC02 was meant to be a test of future military “transformation”—a transition toward new technologies that enable network-centric warfare and provide more powerful weaponry and tactics. The simulated combatants were the United States, denoted “Blue”, and an unknown adversary in the Middle East, “Red”.
Exercise action
Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lt. General Paul K. Van Riper, used old methods to evade Blue’s sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World War II lighting signals to get airplanes off the runways without using radio communication.
On the second day of the exercise Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue’s fleet. Without warning, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles, overwhelming the Blue forces’ electronic sensors, destroying sixteen warships. This includes one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five out of the six amphibious ships. The equivalent of this success in a real conflict would have resulted in the death of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue’s navy was “sunk” by an armada of small Red boats carrying out both conventional and suicide attacks, able to engage Blue forces due to Blue’s inability to detect them as well as expected.
It’s doubtful that any of the Doofuses in the Pentagon has any knowledge of this exercise; the advantage would lie with the Iranians. The Iranian facilities are dispersed and deeply buried. Sites are well defended. The campaign to destroy sufficient infrastructure would be long and costly. Iranian surrogates would attack American personnel in Iraq and elsewhere and fire rockets into Israel. There is no certain outcome for this adventure, it is ever thus with wars.
Look for unintended consequences as the US enters into the ‘South Park Era’. The stupid parts are about to begin.