Dems Cannot Afford to Be Silent on Iran's Refusal

By Meteor Blades

Even before Tehran was (perhaps) emboldened by Hezb'allah's (Pyrrhic) success against Israel in southern Lebanon, it seemed clear that it would not give in to the Security Council's soft-edged ultimatum that expires August 31. Sure enough, today, hours ahead of Iran's self-imposed deadline, the reply came, not from President Ahmadinejad, who is apparently too busy with his new blog, but from the real boss:

Khamenei: No letup on Iran nuclear program

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's highest authority, said on Monday the Islamic Republic had decided to press ahead with its pursuit of nuclear energy, suggesting Iran will not heed a U.N. demand to stop enriching uranium.

"The Islamic Republic of Iran has made its decision and, in the issue of nuclear energy, will continue its path powerfully ... and it will receive the sweet fruits of its efforts," Khamenei said on state television, Reuters reported.

Punctuating this announcement was another:

In case of economic sanctions, Iran will envisage restrictions for IAEA inspections

Vienna (AKI) - Just hours before Iran is due to give world powers its response to a package of incentives aimed at persuading the country to give up its nuclear activities, new centrifuges have been installed at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility over the past two weeks, an anonymous source at the United Nations nuclear watchdog told Adnkronos International (AKI). Meanwhile, the country's heavy water reactor at nearby Arak in central Iran "will shortly be operational," the second in command of Iran's nuclear programme, Mohammad Saidi, was quoted as saying.

Also on Monday, inspectors from the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) left Iran without being granted access to its underground nuclear sites, the country's semi-official Fars agency reported. This will increase suspicions that Iran may be seeking to develop a covert nuclear weapons programme - and make inspections much harder, observers say.

The question now is whether U.S. diplomats can persuade the Russians, and more difficult still, the Chinese to impose economic sanctions on Iran for its refusal. If they can't, or if, as some observers have suggested, they won't even try very hard, the long-awaited (and in some quarters, heartily hoped-for) U.S. use of military force against Iran may be upon us in late September or early October.

For more than three years, I've wavered on the matter of whether the Bush Regime would ultimately attack Iran. Respected observers have often predicted this or that month as the launch-date for such an attack, starting in December 2003. But the diplomats - that is, European diplomats, particularly the EU3 (France, Germany and Britain) - kept hopes alive that some kind of agreement could forestall a military action against the country that many Neo-Imperialists have always considered the main target for bringing about their New American Century. Now, however, all the talking seems about ready to end. Unless sanctions are imposed, within a month we could learn whether the revolting ex-generals and defense officials, or the NeoImps, will win the day, whether Sy Hersh was right in describing Israel's incursion into south Lebanon as a dry run for a U.S. assault on Iran. As deeply as the Iraqmire has wounded the NeoImps, like badgers they don't give in easily, and, like badgers, they are most dangerous when injured.

Bill Kristol, who has criticized Mister Bush for doing a poor job in Iraq, made this much-discussed assessment on July 24 in the pages of the Weekly Standard:

The right response is renewed strength--in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions--and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.

In case you've forgotten, he had this to say on March 17, 2003:

We are tempted to comment, in these last days before the war, on the U.N., and the French, and the Democrats. But the war itself will clarify who was right and who was wrong about weapons of mass destruction. It will reveal the aspirations of the people of Iraq, and expose the truth about Saddam's regime. ... History and reality are about to weigh in, and we are inclined simply to let them render their verdicts.

Reality seems not to have made the impact on Kristol that he said to bring on. Neither he nor Newt Gingrich and other purveyors of the World War III theme have lost any of the hubris they suffused the foreign policy forums with in the ramp-up to the Iraqmire four years ago. But the chest-thumping, saber-rattling, bunker-busting NeoImps aren't the only impediment to sound Iran policy.

First, the theocratic fanatics who have run Iran openly or behind-the-scenes since 1979 are not making matters easier for those who prefer diplomacy instead of lethal force to solve international differences - except as a last resort in the most extreme cases. Having hidden portions of their nuclear program for years, and now on the verge of hiding part of it again, they've made it hard to argue convincingly that they have no intention of building weapons they are honor-bound not to build under the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Second, the Democrats, whose Congressional victory in November on which so many progressives have pinned their hopes for a weakening of the Bush Regime, seem unlikely to object vigorously to military action. How many of them are quiet about Iran for fear of being labeled terror-symps or IslamoFascist-enablers and how many actually think it's a good idea to bomb a country they perceive to present a real threat is anybody's guess.

Whether one believes that Iran is intent on building nuclear weapons or not, even in the worst-case scenario - offered by David Albright at the Institute for Science and International Security - Iran could not have a nuclear weapon before 2009. So, if there is a threat, it should not be ignored, but it is not imminent.

However, unless some leading Democrats join with the revolting ex-generals and other defense officials to speak often and loudly to this point, I think an attack by the U.S. is imminent. Note to naysayers: I didn't say inevitable.

Just how awful would an attack be? There's been much discussion of which targets might be chosen. Here's one that looks solely at potential nuclear facilities.

At least four options exist (in various combinations) for what an attack might entail.

1. Conventional attack on one or a few days solely against nuclear (and putative nuclear sites), air defense operations and possibly a few other solely or mostly military targets. Some observers say that just piling the rubble high on nuclear sites and blocking their aboveground entrances would put Iran's nuclear program out of commission for years. Iranian casualties: Perhaps as low as several hundred fatalities and a few thousand wounded. U.S. casualties: Perhaps as few as zero.

2. Conventional attack over a week or two against nuclear, air defense, military bases and other infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, roads, rail, airports, factories, petroleum processing, pipelines, ports, et cetera). Iranian casualties: Several thousand. U.S. casualties: Perhaps fewer than 50.

   3. Selective nuclear attack on a few underground nuclear facilities, plus a conventional attack on other nuclear facilities. Iranian casualties: Massive, possibly in the hundreds of thousands, even a million, plus long-term radioactive effects. U.S. casualties: Perhaps as low as zero.

4. No. 3, plus a land invasion through the Khuzestan oil region and/or other regions. Iranian casualties: Hundreds of thousands, possibly a million. U.S. casualties: Thousands, possibly tens of thousands.

Personally, I think No. 4 is off the table. The Air Force is possibly the only branch that hasn't objected to an assault on Iran, and officials in the Army and Marines have allegedly objected most. I just don't see how this could be pulled off logistically given the problems extant in Iraq. Oh sure, troops could be pulled from Germany and/or Korea, but practically speaking, I think that's just not going to happen. Any ground operations would, I think, be confined to "special ops" Some of that, I suspect, already has been going on for some time.

Although I once thought otherwise, I'm also of the view that the U.S. will not employ nukes if it does attack Iran. Although "bunker-busters" of one sort have been available since the Clinton Administration, they aren't particularly practical and, much as some of the NeoImps might like to use them as a demonstration of American resolve, even they recognize that the diplomatic fallout from such an attack would surely be as bad as its radioactive legacy. That might not stop them, but it offers opponents in the Pentagon a very strong talking point.

From a practical standpoint, large conventional weapons are probably enough to take out most facilities, which are likely to buried, but comparatively shallowly. The centrifuge facility at Natanz is not very deep. The really deep stuff - say a secret Natanz twin - is something the existing bunker busters won't take out.

According to a National Research Council study, a nuclear warhead  set off a few meters underground is 25 times more capable of taking out a buried facility than a bomb exploded at the surface. But, it would require a 300-kiloton earth-penetrating nuclear weapon to destroy a target 650 feet underground, and a 1-megaton weapon to destroy a hardened 1000-foot-deep facility. That's 20-70 times the Hiroshima bomb's yield.

The NRC concluded that:

Conclusion 3. Current experience and empirical predictions indicate that earth-penetrator weapons cannot penetrate to depths required for total containment of the effects of a nuclear explosion.

{snip}

Conclusion 6. For attacks near or in densely populated urban areas using nuclear earth-penetrator weapons on hard and deeply buried targets (HDBTs), the number of casualties can range from thousands to more than a million, depending primarily on weapon yield. For attacks on HDBTs in remote, lightly populated areas, casualties can range from as few as hundreds at low weapon yields to hundreds of thousands at high yields and with unfavorable winds.

Anyone caring to brave the nausea from examining what the effects of a single nuke on a deep underground facility near Isfahan can do so here.

Nukes or not, an attack on Iran can be counted on to kindle blowback. This likely will include all kinds of "terrorist" attacks on U.S. facilities and American civilians abroad (from tourists to businesspeople) in places as far-flung as Spain and Malaysia. Many believe that Iran has the capability to strike inside the U.S. (not with conventional warfare, of course), and that they could set into motion this capability the minute the first bomb hit Isfahan.

Here's an excerpt about the possibilities from retired intelligence analyst Jeffrey White at The Washington Institute:

Long-term Reaction. In the long-term, Iran would attempt to take steps that would insure itself against another attack on its nuclear program or a broader attack on the regime. Tehran would almost certainly rebuild the program, reflecting its status as a high-value national asset. Unless significant numbers of scientists and technicians were killed in the strikes, there is no reason why Tehran could not restart the program; as long as it possesses the necessary knowledge and skills, Iran will have the basis for such a program. Indeed, Iran would likely accelerate both its nuclear and long-range-missile efforts in order to achieve a measure of deterrence as quickly as possible. The regime would also increase security for the program by instituting or increasing hardening, dispersal, redundancy, and active defense measures. In addition, Tehran would likely plan and then implement asymmetric attacks on high-value U.S. and allied targets.

Iran has every right to build nuclear power plants. Some progressives argue that, no matter how rancid its treatment of its own citizens, no matter how putrescent and threatening its anti-semitic rhetoric, Iran also has the right to build nuclear weapons, and that it is justified in doing so given that it lives surrounded by nuclear powers (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel - plus the U.S. in occupied Iraq). As long as it is signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, however, Iran is in violation of international law. Those who argue that the NPT is enforced unfairly (witness the recent U.S.-Indian nuke deal) have a point. The NPT needs significant reworking. But it is the height of hypocrisy to argue on the one hand - as so many of us have justifiably done since Nine-Eleven - that the Bush Regime is an international outlaw and, on the other hand, give Iran a pass.

However one feels about double-standard the United States applies to its nuclear policy regarding Iran, Pakistan, India and Israel, it would be political suicide for Democrats to run on a platform perceived as enabling Iran to go ahead with an unsupervised program that could lead to its building of nuclear weapons.

But, Democrats have more than the two options of ignore Iran and hand-wringing silence in the face of possible military intervention.

First, instead of saying nothing against the fear-mongering that Republicans hope will give them an edge in yet another election, they should constantly remind everyone that Iran is, in the worst possible scenario, three years away from building a nuclear weapon. Probably five years, possibly ten. Nothing that Tehran's leaders have said or done demands rash action.

Second they put forth a better carrot-and-stick approach than the one the Security Council, under U.S. pressure, offered and Iran rejected. Some along the lines that David Albright has suggested here.

There are two shortcomings to the EU proposal that should be remedied before even a short-term suspension of enrichment is possible: Iran must have security assurances that there will be no threats or use of force against Iran as long as it is in compliance with its UN and IAEA obligations, and there must be quickly-delivered "carrots" with broad popular appeal in exchange for Iran giving up its enrichment program.

Among the proposals and counterproposals seeking a resolution to this issue, one that is especially gaining momentum in some quarters of Europe and Iran is to allow Iran's centrifuges to spin but with no uranium hexafluoride. This would give Iran important knowledge of centrifuge cascade operations with proliferation risks of its own, and must not be part of the negotiated settlement.

Third, and I'll have more to say about this in a essay, the Democrats should endorse a redrafting to the  Non-Proliferation Treaty, an NPT that is fair and can be enforced and that actually draws the entire world slowly, inexorably toward the day when nuclear weapons are in nobody's arsenal.

Comments

[selise]

" the Democrats should endorse a redrafting to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, an NPT that is fair and can be enforced and that actually draws the entire world slowly, inexorably toward the day when nuclear weapons are in nobody's arsenal."

in a perfect world, i'd agree. but how can we hope anyone will take us seriously considering how we have not been complying with the current NPT (to say nothing wrt our stance on bioweapons treaties).

i'm not proposing an alternative... i just don't see how to get from here to there with out some serious national discussion that recognizes our failings wrt to current weapons treaties....

[Mimikatz]

The first step in getting from here to there is to get rid of the Bush Regime.

I cringe whenever there is talk of bombing Iran. What about our troops in iraq? The oil weapon? The Straits of Hormuz? The Venezuelan card? The Chinese, who hold so much of our debt? It would be so easy to seriously disrupt our financial networks. So easy to disrupt commerce. Why would we want to take such a chance? Where are the voices of reason?

If it is to happen, I can't believe they would do it before the election. Even Bush must realize now that actions like this are a gamble, and if he is wrong again, history and the public are not going to be particularly kind to him or his party. Or the Dems, if they don't at least vocally raise objections.

[Mimikatz]

The public has already made up its mind on Iraq. I realize, from his press conference this morning, that this means nothing to Bush. But still--what about others in his party? Are they all planning to be raptured or something?

[orionATL]

mb

i appreciate your passion but if i were a democratic leader i would do just what democrats have been doing for a couple or three years:

keep quiet and let people observe and make up their own minds about the bush admin's latest policy blunder.

a democratic party that starts a fight on this specific issue (iran) is a democratic party that will, as a consequence, lose its most important function and its only chance of winning in november -- critiquing the competence and wisdom of george bush, his advisers and cabinet members, and the republican congress that has enabled the bush misadventure domestic and foreign.

it is not the duty of democrats to stand up against a single insane policy (bombing iran) of a singularly incompetent president cum advisers.

it is the duty of the democratic party to the american people and the historical american government to accurately and persistently criticize the performance of the president and the party who have been in power now for 6 long and disastrous years.

govt is about hard decisions. the hard decision now is to keep a laser focus on the bush performance over 6 years and to not, repeat not, get bogged down in one single issue - iran or any other domestic or foreign.

one of the republican tactics that has worked against democrats and moderate republican in the past is to engage in some absurd behavior, e.g., anti-gay marriage legislation, retaliation against iraq, society security "reform")

and while that specific great debate is raging, to slip away under cover of debate and continue to govern as they please.

the only concern for democratic officials and candidates at this time and into november should be a persistent, detailed, unending critique of the entire panoply of incompetence that george bush has woven -

the target should be

the ENTITY of bushly presidential incompetence.

[Meteor Blades]

The Democrats can, imo, orionATL, stand passively by with their little checklist of Mister Bush's incompetencies in this particular matter until we come to the end diplomacy, which might be when the Russians and/or Chinese say no to sanctions. Then, if the WH starts clearing its throat in preparation to an attack on Iran, every Dem who doesn't speak up in opposition to such an attack is dead to me.

[FredinVermont]

Some progressives argue that, no matter how rancid its treatment of its own citizens, no matter how putrescent and threatening its anti-semitic rhetoric, Iran also has the right to build nuclear weapons, and that it is justified in doing so given that it lives surrounded by nuclear powers (Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel - plus the U.S. in occupied Iraq). As long as it is signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, however, Iran is in violation of international law

There is something strange about the argument that says Iran is in violation of international law but only because it remains a signatory of the treaty and says that it does not intend to build nuclear weapons.  Once we slap sanctions on Iran that deprive them of the benefits of being a signatory to the treaty, then they can simply withdraw and say that given the hostility of major powers toward them they have no choice but develop nuclear weapons.

Once that happens then what happens to the legalistic fig leaf?  Then it just becomes a question of we don't want Iran to have nukes because we don't like the government they elected.

[....]

mimikatz quote >> Even Bush must realize now that actions like this are a gamble, and if he is wrong again, history and the public are not going to be particularly kind to him or his party.<<

bush has a habit of gambling and i doubt anything about him has changed since his last gamble in iraq... actually he probably figures since he lost on that one, he can roll the dice with a better chance on this... the guy is a gambler and the world suffers for it, but i say he is going to gamble once again here..

[Chris Loosley]

mimikatz:

Even Bush must realize now that actions like this are a gamble, and if he is wrong again, history and the public are not going to be particularly kind to him or his party.

I am afraid that your next post (about this morning's press conference) gives the lie to the idea that Bush might "realize" anything of the sort. It is clear that his mindset is already: "I don't care how many people say I'm wrong. I know I'm right, and history will prove me correct". How often have we heard him talk about "staying the course"? I think he really believes this stuff, it's not just the spin of the day. So if he has already decided on a course of action -- even if we don't know what it is yet -- he will stick to it out of sheer stubbornness. If you believe, as I do, that this way of thinking and acting is completely consistent with his personality, then there is very little chance of him engaging in the kind of rational introspection your comment assumes.

[...]

bush is incapable of introspection, or relating to a different perspective.. he is well versed in the abuse of power however.

[PrahaPartizan]

Let's get real. It all boils down to Israel. Israel has adamantly refused to sign the NPT. Iran will not agree to forego acquiring nuclear enrichment technology unless Israel agrees to put itself under NPT provisions. Israel has never offically tested a nuclear device, so it could still agree to
the NPT. Why isn't the US government pressuring Israel to do so? If the US government is truly interested in eliminating all WMD from the Middle East, it must make sure that Israel officially agrees to and lives up to the NPT. Many of the other Arab states in the area have pressed for a nuclear-free Middle East and US governments have repeatedly flipped them off. Israel intransigence on resolving the West Bank and occupation issues are undoubtedly linked their knowledge that they hold a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. Take away that monopoly and the lock to resolve the other issues will likely open.

Why isn't the US government pres

[emptywheel]

MB

I agree the Dems need a policy on this that offers an alternative to war. But barring an approach like my own (that says we need to work primarily on Pakistan, which would be involved in any short term Iran proliferation scenario), I just don't have a lot of faith that it would do any good, with Iran or with the ME more generally.

The UN's behavior on Lebanon pretty much shows Iran there's no hope for it there. The UN will not produce a good-faith negotiation so long as Bolton is at the head. Furthermore, it knows the real intent is not non-proliferation, it's regime change. So Iran also knows it has no incentive to deal on nukes--even if it did, we'd still go in.

[orionATL]

mb

for me it is not a matter of passivity;

it ia a matter of not losing focus, of "self-control in conflict".

the democratic party's focus should be on the performance of bush and the republican congress as an entity, not piecemeal.

in 2002 the only discussion that could take place involved iraq - budget, medical insurance, domestic security, etc could not be discussed publicly for all the sound and fury about iraq.

these and other vital issues took a back seat to a prolonged (march to november), pointless argument about whether to invade iraq or not (pointless because bush fully intended to do so).

there is not doubt in my mind that the bush strategists have desperately enlisted the likes of bill crystol and the wall street journal and aei, and any other willing right-wing individual or entity to do a shout out about iran :

wouldn't it be nice to shift the election-year discussion to a fake national security issue - AGAIN.

if the democratic campaign is a tank battalion moving on the presidential palace, that battalion damn well better focus their attention and munitions on the palace and not be stopping here and there to engage the enemy's diversionary tactics.

the democrats need to focus on the entity of bush competence, on the entire range of expected presidential competencies. and they need to focus on the republican congress' failure to exercise what is called "oversight", but which could as easily be called "sound judgment".

if, and this is a big if, the demos do focus on the entity of the bush domestic and foreign policies since january 2001, then

they will have educated the public and set the stage for a public judgment on bush and the republican congress this coming november.

but there are only a little over two months to educate and to set that stage.

[Susan]

I will not suggest that the Middle East is a game, far from it but as Lebanon has clearly demonstrated this whole area is being "won" or "lost" in the media. Agression is losing. The leaders of all the players of the ME are grasping this concept with far more comprehension and dexterity than the bull-headed Bush foreign policy being forced upon that part of the world.

Dems need to capitalize on the democratic possibilities present and budding in that area, while deemphasizing the nuclear progress in Iran that is years away. Patience and diplomacy is the American way.
Also pointing out the failures of this admin to ACTUALLY put into place dependable homeland security, something necessary before we start dropping bombs on such a scary place as Iran.

[CKR]

I'd like to see a rewrite of the NPT, but now is not the time for the Dems to try to do it. Maybe a think tank or arms control group. Maybe even some bloggers?

And there'd need to be a lot of other stuff done by the US government in support of it, which this administration clearly isn't going to do. Dealing with Israel's nuclear arsenal, as PrahaPartizan points out.

[janinsanfran]

Dems aren't up to it. Sorry. We're left with citizen movements -- pathetic but necessary -- and prayer.

[Powerpuff]

I know what I would do, but, of course, I would not win any election in America, and that is give Iran American nukes. So, Democrats are going to have to come up with something more palatable for the electorate.

Iran desires security and stable markets. Exxon and Bush desire Iran's oil for monopolist profits. The American people desire security and stable markets. It seems the people of America and Iran desire the same things.

Democrats need to expose the Republican/neo-conmen as exploiters of our fear of a nation that has never exhibited any territorial aggression since the revolution. Democrats need to stress that Iranians and Americans have much in common. Democrats must use the NPT and the UN as the ultimate arbiters of the nuclear development conflict, not a unilateral military solution. Democrats can deflect criticism by pointing to the disaster in Iraq and ask the American people if they think having their children serve in a war against Iran is in their best interests or Exxon's.

Since polling suggests Americans are sick of war, Democrats need to use that as a wedge to counter claims of appeasement are signs of weakness and say Bush's Iraq folly has weakened us much more than they know. Point out the deficit. Democrats have to maintain there is no imminent threat, just like there was none in Iraq, and use media to ask why war in Iran now, until people are aware that war with Iran will be a hundred times worse than war with Iraq.

If Democrats can craft a message that war with Iran will mean a cut in living standards for a decade, Americans will turn their backs on war with Iran. I think that may be their best counter to the warmongering of the Republicans and the war lobby.

[Dismayed]

Dems for sure need to hit the mantra, Bush and company can't run a war. They need to start using the words civil war in Iraq. They need to remind the public that Bush did not listen to the Generals on Iraq, that that is what led to out current situation, and point out that they are not listening to the Generals again. They need to call on the American people to make Bush prove he can handle the first war he started before he even talks about starting another. Even Repub core supporters do not want another war right now. If the Dems get on the stick here, they can have the populace behind them in a way rarely seen in American history.

[&y]

Third, and I'll have more to say about this in a essay, the Democrats should endorse a redrafting to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, an NPT that is fair and can be enforced and that actually draws the entire world slowly, inexorably toward the day when nuclear weapons are in nobody's arsenal.

Meteor Blades --

Just wanted to say that I'm looking forward to your essay on the NPT. I've given the treaty some (mostly idle) thought over the years, but have never been able to come up with anything realistic.

[Hair loss]

One thing that people crib about most nowadays is hair loss. Be it the men or the women hair loss is a common trouble for all. Be it pollution, malnutrition, or heredity the number of people affected from hair loss is increasing continuously and at a rapid speed. Hair has from time immemorial been dubbed as an element of beauty especially for the women hence it is only normal that people panic at hair loss. But developing technology has now also made it possible that people have at least alternatives for hair loss.