Iran Update

Ahma . . . Ahma . . . Ahmadinejad (whew) let fly with another statement this weekend claiming Tehran has radically increased its nuclear enrichment program. Specifically, he stated the nuclear program now posses more than 5,000 centrifuges; an IAEA report in May estimated the number of running centrifuges to be around 3,500. He then celebrated the development and commended the program for beating back western calls to halt nuclear development.

Ahmadinejad certainly hopes these statements will anger Europe and the U.S. as they come only a week before the latest deadline for Iran to accept a package of incentives for freezing enrichment or face further U.N. sanctions. He is very fond of saying crap like this because he gets just what he wants: the West gets pissed and begins to talk about military options, which pushes the Iranian public away from the West into Ahmadinejad’s waiting arms and distracts them from the catastrophe that is the Iranian economy.

We’ll see if we get a reaction. Clearly the Bush administration has elected to go the diplomatic route since it has sent Undersecretary of State William J. Barnes to peace talks in Geneva and has expressed interest in opening a diplomatic post within Iran itself, both of which are major policy reversals that seemed to ease tensions. However, as I noted two weeks ago, the Israelis do not seem to be as willing to talk and this development seemingly flies in the face of the “freeze for freeze” agreement, which stated Iran would add no further centrifuges or expand its nuclear program and the West would refrain from pressing for another round of sanctions. Of course, the IAEA estimate could have been wrong about the 3,500 estimate or Ahmadinejad may have taken some, shall we say, dramatic license.

One of the actual issues here, if we can get away from the rhetoric, is the number. Iran has been shooting for 6,000 centrifuges, which would, according to what I’ve read, in theory give them the ability to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb in six months. When the West signed on to “freeze for freeze” we thought the number of centrifuges was not as high but if Iran already has enough centrifuges to produce a bomb, the Israelis might be less inclined to cooperate. Another issue of course is whether they are running and whether they are running smoothly. I guess you can have 6,000 centrifuges and technically not “expand” your program if they’re not made operational during “freeze for freeze”. I don’t really know the specifics on this though.

We’ll see what these statements do to discussions because the clock is ticking.

Storm on the Iranian Front Grows

Interesting and very concerning developments over the past few weeks regarding a possible strike on Iran. Last month, the Israeli air force conducted a major air power exercise involving roughly 100 advanced F-15I Ra’am and F-16I Sufa fighters. The aircraft took off from their bases in Israel, traveled west over the Med as far as Greece and returned, covering a span of almost 1200 miles roundtrip, roughly the same distance between Israel and Iran’s Nataz nuclear-enrichment facilities near Esfahan. The exercise focused on mid-air refueling and search and rescue for downed aviators; it was a resounding success. Last week, in response to an Iranian statement that maritime assets would be destroyed in the Persian Gulf and the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz (25% of the worlds daily oil supply travels through these waters) if Iranian “interests are jeopardized”, the US Navy stated it would not allow Iran to close the waterway and announced a major naval exercise designed to ensure readiness and refine tactics within the 5th Fleet. These exercises were greeted by several missile tests near the Strait of Hormuz in Iran.

On the diplomatic front, statements of concern have been issued by Beijing and Tokyo, a huge development considering China and Japan are Iran’s largest oil importers and neither country had commented on the crisis.

Furthermore, in a post that is both brilliant and terrifying, Galrahn notes the domestic political developments:

I can't say I'm excited about [the FISA] bill, but I can live with it, perhaps literally. Following an attack on Iran by Israel, Iran is not going to find much success trying to sink the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) in the Indian Ocean, but they might have a great deal of success killing you and me here in America. We don't believe for one second that Iran is going to abide by the Geneva Conventions and not intentionally support the killing of American civilians in North America. If war happens, they are as likely if not more likely to attack here than in the Gulf. Whether you like it or not, there was absolutely no way the Democrats, including Barack Obama, were going to leave the possibility open that Israel attacks Iran, and the US gets hit by terrorist attacks inside the US while the FISA bill wasn't passed.

This is a key point. The Democratic Party in mass shifted from a core position. This doesn't happen without keen awareness to some strategic condition. Clearly some outside force has produced conditions which are far outside the scope of national politics, because nothing short of insight and real concern for political survival would Democrats find inspiration for such a massive policy shift with virtually no explanation to its core constituency. This is a major reason, and to Democrats scratching still (sic) their heads, an obvious sign we believe that Israel has demanded a time table.

So there you have it: the conditions seem to indicate that something big is going to happen in the next few months and we could very well be dragged into a fight by our only real ally in the Middle East.

The wild card in all of this seems to be Turkey. In order for the Israelis to mount a strike from their home turf, they would need to travel through Jordanian and Iraqi airspace. The latter would require at least a silent nod from Washington because the United States controls Iraqi skies. However, since Secretary Gates has been an outspoken opponent of Iranian strikes and has garnered a large measure of respect from the military and the American people for turning DOD around, it is difficult to see how this would happen without causing a huge rift in both the administration and the military. On the other hand, Turkey could offer either airspace or basing rights to Israel, which would allow the Israelis to do an end run around the Americans and strike from the north. Striking from Turkey would also be much safer because search-and-rescue helos and tankers could base and operate within friendly airspace. Ingress from Turkey would also make Iran think twice about retaliation against the Turks, as Tehran would have to consider the severe consequences that would certainly arise if it attacked a member of NATO with the largest standing army in Europe.

Dr. Barnett has a pretty good take on the political situation. He essentially argues the political lives of Iran’s Ahmadinejad and Israel’s Olmert, both of whom are viewed by their respective countries as failures, would be well-served by war because it would give them an opportunity to maintain a grip on power. Olmert, for example, is under serious criticism for failing to enlist more international support to deal with Iran’s nuclear issue while Ahmadinejad’s reign has been a disaster as the Iranian economy is in a nose-dive spurred by run-away inflation. Students, who make no attempt to hide their love for America, are calling for his head on a platter. Nothing better to feed the masses than a healthy dose of blood-soaked nationalism. Additionally, Israel is extremely skeptical of a possible Obama administration, so better to strike while you’ve got friends in the White House. Not to mention the fact that an Israeli strike, according to Barnett, would help McCain’s prospects.

I’m skeptical about a McCain benefit. If Americans believe the White House is even remotely involved in some kind of strike, (i.e. silent nod on Iraqi airspace) Obama will almost certainly get a bump because I’m pretty sure most Americans (like 80+%) are against another war, especially involving one and possibly two nuclear powers. However, if Israel strikes unilaterally from Turkey and Iran retaliates against the Turks, which would require a response from NATO, McCain could possibly benefit since the retaliation could be spun as an attack. So again, it comes down to Turkey.

In a major departure from prior policy, Bush will send a senior envoy to international talks in Geneva this weekend with a “one-time deal” designed to talk the Persians down. Several members of the six-party talks have insisted upon a hard six-week “freeze for freeze”negotiations period, under which no further sanctions will be enacted and Iran will not add to its nuclear program. This period insures that war would not break out until after the Olympics thereby insuring heads of state will be in attendance at Beijing. However, the period is also a countdown.

Meanwhile naval activity is on the rise in both the Pacific and Atlantic theaters, as Europe, America, and their allies are putting a large number of ships to sea for some of the largest combined exercises in history. These combined fleets will be at an extraordinary state of readiness by the beginning of August, which will last into mid September when the US Navy is scheduled to rotate forces.

Dates to watch over the next few months: August 30, September 29, October 28, November 27, and December 27. These are days with new moons.

Whose Policy is it Anyway?

Galrahn, over at Information Dissemination, has a very interesting post concerning the prospective foreign policies offered by McCain and Obama. He essentially argues both campaigns lack any real strategic change and tend to just quote the military when either camp discusses foreign policy because Americans trust the military more than politicians:

To a greater degree, the [foreign policy] talking points that have become the position of Obama and already represents the position of McCain, are not being driven by political ideologies, rather the policy talking points of the current military leadership. From our perspective, it looks like the Secretary of Defense is now driving the campaign conversation talking points on both wars and the fragile peace regarding Iran.

There are two ways to look at this, either the political leadership running for president is so absent strategic thinking that they must rely on the current military leadership to establish a credible strategic position for them, or the political leadership believes the current military leadership is doing such a great job they are intentionally following their direction. The first implies two disappointing candidates, while the the second would highlight a military with a bit too much control regarding the direction of the national political debate. One thing is plainly obvious though, both Barack Obama and John McCain have both conceded the position of the nations wars to the military, essentially adopting the positions of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, which by extension were the positions of Admiral Fallon.

The position of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, despite being top figures in the Bush Administration, are not publicly considered to be holding the same political line that the Bush Administration is. This has given both candidates the ability to accumulate plenty of credibility on the issues, essentially citing the same things military leaders are saying, which allows them to politically be in an alternative position of the administration while also shielding them from political heat from their opponents.

I think Galrahn makes a great point here. However, the argument seems to work better with Obama. While most of the American Left’s arguments concerning a McCain administration being a continuation of Bush are hogwash, they are essentially right when it comes to foreign policy. Thus McCain is going to sound a lot like the SECDEF and will try to keep most of the Gates team intact if he’s elected because he agrees with their vision and believes it’s working. Obama, on the other hand, does seem to quote military leader because he, as well as every other Dem in Congress, has yet to articulate a plausible strategic vision that would serve Liberal goals (diplomacy, getting out of Iraq?) and American interests alike. For example, how would a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq contribute to a stable Middle East? Obama’s recent statements concerning Iraq and free trade, though encouraging strategic statements in my opinion, flew in the face of his entire primary campaign message and now he’s backtracking on those statements, so it’s difficult to really know where he stands. So it seems to me Obama’s policy is continuation of the party line: complain and point out problems without offering solutions. Therefore when JCS or DOD complain, Obama immediately seizes those statements as a foreign policy platform. The problem with this kind of politics is platforms can’t just point out problems, they must offer solutions to solve them.

GTMO: Habeas 'Aint the Only Reason

Ever since the Boumediene decision was handed down a couple of weeks ago, there’s been a lot of talk on the editorial pages calling on the Administration to close Camp Delta (the detainee facility) at Guantanamo Bay (GTMO). While most of these arguments essentially argue that since the legal justifications for holding enemy combatants off shore no longer exist, the facility should be closed. However, while I strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s position regarding habeas rights for detainees, the argument for closing GTMO seems to ignore many of the practical justifications for holding enemy combatants in Cuba. To be sure, the legal factors were probably the overriding reason the Bush Administration chose GTMO but they were not the only reasons.

Think about this from a security perspective. Following the September 11th attacks and America’s subsequent invasion of Afghanistan, U.S. forces started to take thousands of prisoners during its combat operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. At first, these prisoners were treated the same way the military has always treated prisoners and the captured fighters were kept in makeshift prisons throughout Afghanistan. However, as operations continued, it became apparent that the facilities would not suffice, especially for the more hardened fighters who, instead of laying down their arms and being content with being away from the font lines as most POWs were in World War II, would stop at nothing to effect escape and kill their captors . In late November 2001, for example, a group of recently captured Taliban fighters concealed weapons in a makeshift U.S. detention facility and killed a CIA agent and several other Americans and took over the facility for over a week until they could be subdued in one of the most brutal battles in the Afghanistan campaign. Furthermore, this is not an old phenomenon. Just last month, to cite another example, Taliban forces attacked a Canadian-guarded facility in Kandahar and freed over 800 prisoners in one of the largest jailbreaks in modern history. Thus we need a facility that will get these guys the hell away from the battlefield and is easily defendable.

As a former administration official points out, when Bush & Co. decided on GTMO it considered these things. Not only is the base well defended against a terrorist attack, being nearly surrounded by water, but it’s also situated within an area where U.S. civilians are not exposed or endangered by the enemy combatants’ presence. Any facility that houses detainees will almost certainly be a target for attack. Currently, the only other maximum security prison maintained by DOD is Fort Leavenworth; which boasts an extremely large concentration of personnel, a relatively high civilian population and is located just outside Leavenworth, Kansas. Thus transferring the detainees to Leavenworth could frighten and possibly endanger a large number of US civilians as well as threaten the base, which could prove catastrophic since the fort is considered the intellectual center of the Army. Moreover, Camp Delta has been specifically designed and built from the ground-up to house and care for these individuals at, no doubt, great expense to the American taxpayer. Moving the detainees to another facility would require DOD to either build another prison or institute major renovations to Leavenworth or other detention facilities. Do we really need to build ANOTHER facility? The editorial pages would do well to remember that the law is not the only thing that should be considered before trashing GTMO. Change the policy not the place.

Nough said

Couple of guys thought they'd re-up in Baghdad today:
Happy 4th.