Preventing a Cascade of Instability

U.S. Engagement to Check Iranian Nuclear Progress

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

Preventing a Cascade of Instability
by Schneider, Habiger & Soderberg
10-Mar-2009
 

On March 4, 2009, the Presidential Task Force on Iranian Proliferation, Regional Security, and U.S. Policy released its final report at a special Policy Forum at The Washington Institute. The release also included a discussion led by three task force members: Dr. William Schneider, Gen. (Ret.) Eugene Habiger, and Ambassador Nancy Soderberg. The following is a rapporteur's summary of their remarks. Audio and video of this event.

William Schneider
The international community's prolonged hesitance to intervene has allowed Iran to acquire the industrial capability to enrich uranium. Iran has sufficient yellow cake -- uranium that has been milled, the first step toward enrichment -- to produce enough highly enriched uranium to fuel fifty nuclear weapons. Moreover, Iran's path toward nuclear weapons capability is facilitated by its access to Pakistan's nuclear know-how.

The unpopularity of the Iranian regime affords the United States a renewed opportunity to exercise leadership. Washington must promote stiffer economic and financial sanctions, including those that jeopardize Iran's ability to export oil and import refined petroleum products. In addition, the global recession and the oil market meltdown offer some unique short-term opportunities to implement crippling sanctions on Iran's ability to sustain its nuclear program.

Iran's nuclear progress has assumed great urgency in Israel, which perceives the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat. Whatever the U.S. view may be, Israel currently thinks that it has a military option to slow down Iran's nuclear quest, despite the recognition that military means alone cannot permanently stop the program. Israel may be driven to exercise that option sooner than it otherwise would because of concern over improved Iranian air defenses. The crucial issue is the potential Russian sale of the S-300 air defense system. The transfer of the S-300 system to Iran would likely trigger unilateral Israeli action, which would be detrimental to U.S. regional interests. This possibility raises the importance of American engagement with Russia to defer or prevent the transfer of the air defense equipment to Iran until the nuclear issue is resolved.

The U.S. strategic position vis-a-vis Iran affords Washington far greater diplomatic leverage than it has employed in the past. The large U.S. military presence in the region, for example, can be utilized at the diplomatic level to great advantage. The period following the election of President Obama and before the Iranian election in June may provide a particularly good opportunity to strengthen this engagement. Exploitation of carrots (integration into the international community and ending multilateral sanctions) as well as sticks (more severe sanctions) -- could positively affect the preelection environment in Iran.

Eugene Habiger
Deterrence is not just a Cold War concept; it is a viable strategy today. The question is how to use deterrence to prevent a cascade of instability stemming from Iranian nuclear progress. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that the United States would deter nuclear threats not only to itself and its formal allies, but also to its "friends," which is a new dimension that could include countries such as Israel and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states. On the campaign trail in 2008, Hillary Clinton offered a similar proposition.

Deterrence is the product of military capability and political will. If either is lacking, deterrence will not work. The United States has the military capability to deter Iran's nuclear progress, but it remains to be seen whether it has the political will. As it stands today, some in the Middle East have little confidence in the United States to execute its deterrent capability. The current administration must take quick and aggressive action to regain credibility on this issue.

Discussions of U.S. nuclear deterrence often center on extension of the U.S. nuclear umbrella to the region. Washington does not necessarily have to deploy nuclear weapons to this area to maintain an umbrella: although the United States has nuclear weapons embedded in some NATO-allied countries, its nuclear umbrella extends to Japan, South Korea, and Australia without deploying nuclear weapons in those regions.

Nancy Soderberg
The United States has lost the ability to intimidate its adversaries in the Middle East. Unless Washington regains that capacity, the region runs the risk of cascading instability in the face of Iranian nuclear progress. Some regional countries fear that the United States lacks the stamina and clout to resolve this pressing issue and are unconvinced that it will follow through on defense commitments. There is, however, a hunger in the region for U.S. reengagement both on the Iranian front and in the Arab-Israeli peace process.

For Israel, the most clear and immediate threat is a potential Iranian nuclear weapon, particularly if Iran installs an adequate air defense system or takes further steps to hide its capabilities. These scenarios would significantly advance Israel's timetable for action. The United States should consider providing Israel with a stronger strike capability to ease the pressure on Israel to strike Iran preemptive of its acquisition of an advanced air defense system from Russia. More importantly, the United States must reengage Russia and seek cooperation on this matter. For Israel, the freedom to act on its own timetable and develop its own military options are paramount; Israel is not interested in an American nuclear umbrella to deter an attack by a nuclear Iran.

Concerns about Iran in the Persian Gulf extend beyond the nuclear issue to the larger issue of Persian regional hegemony. Arab countries see the centuries-old struggle for regional supremacy shifting in Iran's favor. Arab states are worried that Iran will use proxies to dominate the region and are therefore urging the United States to engage Syria in order to block Iran's doorway into the Levant.

On a positive note, the threat of a nuclear Iran is promoting cooperation among the GCC countries, which is something Washington should continue to encourage. One repeatedly voiced fear in the GCC, however, is that the United States will sacrifice its interests in exchange for a U.S.-Iranian detente or, in a less extreme version, that U.S. concern about their interests will wane as Washington deals with a new partner in Tehran. GCC countries want to be treated as full partners, and the onus is on the United States to seize this opportunity for partnership and cooperation.

The urgency of the Iranian nuclear threat requires U.S. engagement with Tehran. The outcome of Iran's presidential elections later this year will affect the policy on some level: if President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad is voted out of office, a more moderate figure could take his place, altering the dynamic between the two countries.

Although an increased Iranian threat is a major problem, it provides an ideal opportunity to work with Arab states on a range of mutual issues, from counterterrorism and piracy to Persian Gulf security and Iraq. The United States must shore up cooperation among the Gulf countries and reiterate U.S. defense commitments in the Middle East -- all of which will help deal with a problematic Iran while reinforcing other U.S. regional interests. Open discussion of the U.S. nuclear umbrella has left Middle East leaders eager for protection assurances from Washington. The Middle East is hungry for strong U.S. leadership and is looking to the new administration to help solve the problems that plague the region today.

This rapporteur's summary was written by Sana Mahmood.

Balatarin
Share/Save/Bookmark

 
default

Same Old Nonsense

by Dariush (not verified) on Wed Mar 11, 2009 08:58 PM PDT

It is foolish to think that Iran is investing so much money to build nuclear facilities to make a few nuclear bombs. Iran can just buy nuclear bombs from other countries. It would be much more economical and quicker.
Iran's nuclear power plants unlike Israel's and United State's are for clean energy and peaceful technological use.
Before worrying about Iran that has not built and used any of such weapons, You should worry and stop the countries that are building and using nuclear bombs, starting with United States and Israel.


  •  
default

Blatant LIES!

by Ajam (not verified) on Wed Mar 11, 2009 07:53 PM PDT

I started reading this "article," but couldn't get past the first paragraph. Normally the B.S. punch line is saved for last, after introduction and the body of lies, but this one fails to even deliver that! Even the first paragraph insults a decently-informed reader's intelligence by the amount of lies it contains; e.g. "Iran has sufficient yellow cake -- uranium that has been milled, the first step toward enrichment -- to produce enough highly enriched uranium to fuel fifty nuclear weapons." Bear in mind, it says FIFTY, not just ONE!

Even according to staunchest enemies of Iran (including the head of the U.S. intelligence, Dennis Blair, whose accusations of Iran having enough material for ONE bomb was later recanted and corrected by Bob Gates), it has so far produced 1000 lb to one ton (estimates vary) of lowly enriched uranium (LEU U-235, 2.5%) which if reprocessed in a time-consuming and highly elaborate process, by the most optimistic estimates could produce about 50 lb of highly enriched uranium (weapon's grade, HEU 90%) which, on its own, would not be enough for a weapon in any practical form (perhaps in theory, but for even that, no one in their right mind would bank on weaponization with that much material).

Furthermore, this would require an elaborate weaponization process to combine the highly enriched weapons-grade uranium with a sophisticated delivery vehicle (much more advanced than Shahbs) and a suitable warhead (which Shahb missiles lack). All that said, even reprocessing one ton of U-235 can not achieve weaponization requirements, for testing alone would eat that up (any potential weapons programme should go through multiple testing)! Moreover, Iran's nuclear facilities are monitored 24/7 by IAEA and other UN inspectors, and so far there has been no indication of any activities but civilian applications and industrial level uranium enrichment which is Iran's natural right.

So I won't bother reading the rest of this B.S. (aka article) for as the Persian Saying goes: "Sali keh nekoost az baharash peydast!" In other words, if it starts with B.S. who knows what kind of crap it's gonna end up with!!!


  •  
eroonman

Javabeh Ablahan...

by eroonman on Wed Mar 11, 2009 04:49 PM PDT

Reply to Mr. Schneider:

Threatening Iran with Israel won't help. In it's current state of mind, Iran is eagerly looking for that fight. Hoping it happens is actually sick. It also does not help when you "negotiate" civilly with N. Korea, ironically only after they achieved nuclear weapon status. Stop assuming Iran is stupid, and legitimately offer a true hand of peace for once. Really reform your policy of dictator sponsorship, offer measureable penance for your past sins of Mossadegh and the Shah, and maybe, maybe, you will start a real shift. As it stand now, the US and Israel are not really known to be all that trustworthy brokers. You have a long ways yet to go to repair past errors. Talking tough now while you are bankrupt, is merely hilarious. Maybe you should stop thinking about the problem, retire, and let someone else without "baggage" solve it.

Reply to Mr. Habiger:

Deterrence or Detergents? So your only solution is more nukes in the region? That doesn't sound too smart now does it! Especially when you have already allowed Pakestan to not only build them but also sell the plans to every single paying customer he could find, via AQKHan (who somehow out of all the targets, mysteriously has never been deemed worthy of a stay in Guantanamo for questioning, has he now?). Again, old school thinking for a modern era, isn't worth spit. Iran getting nukes is, and has always been a genie out of the bottle. Since the Shah started the program!!!!  Not providing one single reason for Iran NOT to get them is a massive arrogant and racist "failure to launch" on your end sir! Iran had moved towards democracy in 1953. You crushed it with cowardly conspiracy. Now, please, deal with the mess you have wrought! You know what todo. You just can't stand to do it.

Reply to Ms. Soderberg

Aha! The only woman in the group thinks the solution is for the US to "Man-Up" more! Persian Hegemony? As opposed to US and it's proxy Gulfstate hegemony? Again, when you teach the child that acting out in anger is rewarded, the child will act out in anger. Threats and spankings don't work. Talking calmly and taking the time to work with a child to overcome anxiety and fear, does. Anyone knows that the primary way to deal with Iran can be taken from Dr. Spock's child development theories. You are apparently taking direction from Mr. Spock and in need of a serious mind-meld.

In conclusion:

The primary problem with US-Iran relations today is largely due to a fundamental lack of understanding by the US on how Iran works, and what can be done to get Iran to behave differently. The first thing you need to accept and understand, is that Iran "THINKS" it has a moral right, AND upper moral hand here. Iran has quite successfully (if equally wrongly) argued that the US (A wholly owned subsidiary of IAPAC) is the real evil in the world. Once you get that, it makes having dialogue with humility rather than posing, far easier.

I am not saying Iran is right. Of course it is a bad, corrupt, criminal regime. But it has unfortunately been smart enough to legitimize itself and entrench power, through it's messed up constitution. That is the first place to start to shift power inside Iran. None of these blow-hard, wiseacres put up for our worship, have even taken the time to understand Iran's current law, to see where the real problems (and solutions) are.

Actually if you want to blame someone, blame Condoleeza Rice. She is the mastermind/idiot behind allowing Iran to get this far out of hand for her 4 years, ineptly steering a crooked hand at the helm of the worst regime in history.

Sometimes, You Can't Always Bomb Who You Want


  •  
default

Abarmard

by beforeit'stoolate (not verified) on Wed Mar 11, 2009 02:29 PM PDT

upward of $30 million a year for Iraqi insurgents.

This particular article doesn't mention al-quaeda (sp?)

The article refers to the mullah-funded Shia death squads in Iraq. The now defunct Badr Brigade and Mullah shepeshoo Sadr.


  •  
Abarmard

beforeit'stoolate

by Abarmard on Wed Mar 11, 2009 02:10 PM PDT

Don't believe everything you read.

A few days ago I was reading a report that while trying to emphasize the Iranian role as "non problematic", they still wrongly equated Iran with Al Qaida (spelling?) groups and Sunni insurgents in Iraq. I hope at least you realize that such allegations are absolutely wrong and false in every sense.

Therefore it only remains two organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas. Now that can be discussed further but they are not considered "International" terrorist organization. Therefore what you have mentioned in your comment is baseless.

On the contrary, Iran has been fighting Terrorists and extremists back when US was supporting them. Now that I can proof.


  •  
default

By Ilan Berman: Iran, after

by beforeit'stoolate (not verified) on Wed Mar 11, 2009 01:40 PM PDT

By Ilan Berman:

Iran, after all, is still the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism,” according to the U.S. State Department in its most recent study on the subject.

It is a label the Iranian regime has worn, and worn proudly, since the U.S. government began keeping track of terrorist trends more than a decade-and-a-half ago.

The scope of this support is enormous. According to government officials, Iran “has a nine-digit line item in its budget for support to terrorist organizations.” That figure is estimated to include $10 million or more monthly for its principal terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, $20 million to $30 million annually for Hamas, $2 million a year for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and – at least until recently – upward of $30 million a year for Iraqi insurgents.

Three decades after the Islamic Revolution swept the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to power in Tehran, Iran remains very much a radical, revolutionary movement – one committed to spreading its strain of extreme political Islam throughout the region, and far beyond it.

This foreign policy imperative has pitted Tehran against Washington on a political, ideological and strategic level. Or, as Iran’s firebrand president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, put it soon after his election in 2005, “a historic war between the oppressor (Christians) and the world of Islam” is brewing, and his country is on the front lines
//www.afpc.org/publication_listings/viewArtic...


  •  
default

Just a few quick questions, JR

by Shadooneh (not verified) on Wed Mar 11, 2009 09:06 AM PDT

if your "oil weapon" is dischaged, what do you think is going to happen to the price of oil and the economic morass that world, which I'm not sure you live in, is going through?
After you work that out, will you please give a couple of examples of the kinds of "compromises" you'd suggest the "international community", whose majority does NOT have any problems with Iran, to use to "persuade" India to shut the oil valves off? Do you really think India is run by a bunch of morons?
Finally, what are you suggesting to be done once the IRI is "destablized"? Would a blanket kosht-o-koshtar of Iranians satisfy your thirst for blood?


  •  
Abarmard

Dear Ostaad

by Abarmard on Wed Mar 11, 2009 08:58 AM PDT

You are correct. It is clear who these individuals are and where they get paid and what's their intentions.

These people have been trying hard to beat the war drums against Iran and Iranian nation, by using propaganda and US military/money but they have hit their head against the reasoning rock of smart politicians over and over again. I expect them to continuing their tries but see no threat in their existence. Simply put, they are useless.

Thanks Ostaad for the clarification.


  •  
default

Ganselmi's brilliant analysis

by AnonymousBuddy (not verified) on Wed Mar 11, 2009 04:33 AM PDT

What "moderate Arab regimes" are you talking about? The leader of the pack, Saudi Arabia, is 100 times more repressive and fundamentalist than the IRI. Kuwait, UAE, and the other U.S. puppet family dictatorships in the Gulf? Or do you mean, Egypt, which currently has more political prisoners than Iran? What do these regimes have in common that makes them "moderate"? Well, the answer is this: they follow the orders that Uncle Sam issues. This really shows the standards of those Iranians who insist on acting as Uncle Sam's propagandists: as long as one obey the rulers in Washington D.C., then you are "moderate".

"US leadership and support for pro-democracy movement" reached its acme in 1953 when the U.S. helped engineer the coup that restored the dictator back to power. Uncle Sam is the patron saint of right-wing dictatorships around the globe.

Ganselmi, Iranians see through your U.S. government-inspired propaganda.


  •  
default

Bunch of Israeli-firsters coming together...

by Anonymous2323 (not verified) on Wed Mar 11, 2009 04:21 AM PDT

... to write up a report on what they think Israel should dictate to the US. That's all it is. all neoconservative hawks who would bomb Iran if they could get away with it.


  •  
ganselmi

To all who naively boast

by ganselmi on Wed Mar 11, 2009 04:18 AM PDT

To all who naively boast about WMD brinksmanhip -- you realize if an actual confrontation involving WMDs occurs ... Iran will cease to exist within a span of 30 minutes, right?


  •  
Jahanshah Rashidian

Oil Weapon vs Mullahs

by Jahanshah Rashidian on Wed Mar 11, 2009 04:00 AM PDT

The IRI systematically ignores the UN sanctions or even military threats from outside. Nuclear energy in the hands of backward Mullahs and their jihadist mercenaries matches their jihadi ambitions and thus it only props their parasitic life up. Therefore, it is unlikely that the IRI refuses its nuclear enrichment programme, even if forced to tactically suspend it to meltdown international concerns.

In the interests of international peace, an oil embargo on the IRI must come in question because the previous Security Council's resolutions 1737, 1747, and 1803, did not really have an impact. Oil income is the main source of Mullahs. Oil, as an national revenue, is not in a great precentage invested for the cause of national interests, but mainly to finance the repressive organs, security services, and inner / outer terrorist and propaganda machinery of the Mullahs' regime. 

A big portion of domestic gasoline is imported from India. The international community must find a compromise with India to persuade them to stop delivering gasoline to the IRI. This is an important beginning to financially and politically destabilise the plague of the IRI.


  •  
default

Re: the regime is weak

by us interest = iran interest is against Israel (not verified) on Tue Mar 10, 2009 11:49 PM PDT

All the reasons you brought up was even more sever during Iran-Iraq war.

My friend, do not count on these factors. No one is strong enough to do injustice!


  •  
default

the bottom line answer to the authors

by Reza Khaneh Mir Five (not verified) on Tue Mar 10, 2009 06:57 PM PDT

بموقع کیک زرد خودمان را درست کردیم و انشالله نوروز همه دهان را با کیک زرد شیرین خواهیم کرد. بترکه چشم حسود و بخیل. میشینیم دور هم شب عیدی هولوف هولوف کیک زرد میخوریم و میخندیم.

اسرائیل هم اگر دلش خواست میتونه بیاد اونهم بخوره. شب عیده.


  •  
default

Why do we need any study

by Anonymous... (not verified) on Tue Mar 10, 2009 03:41 PM PDT

Why do we need any study group to tell us that Obama is not really interested in negotiating with the IRI.

Don't your read the news? What happened to common sense?

The state deparment has concluded that the IRI is not interested in normalization of the relationsp, case closed.


  •  
ganselmi

The regime is weak

by ganselmi on Tue Mar 10, 2009 03:39 PM PDT

As Dr. Schneider points out, and as can be ascertained from a preponderance of reports, the regime is shaky for a number of reasons right now:

- Approx. 75% drop in oil prices as compared to last year as a result of the broader economic downturn

- A reinvigorated student movement

- The prospect of Khamanei's death leading to a potential succession crisis

- Moderate Arab regimes coalescing around their common security concerns vis-a-vis Tehran

- Ethnic tensions in the south

All of these factors should push the international community to take serious steps towards deterrence to avert catastrophe -- we need US leadership and support for pro-democracy movement now more than ever as this is a small window of opportunity indeed.

 


  •  
Ostaad

Let's make this point clear...

by Ostaad on Tue Mar 10, 2009 03:15 PM PDT

This so-called Presidential Task Force has no official mandate, and it was NOT setup by President Obama nor any other official organ of the US government to conduct any study. This group was put together by The Washington Institute, which is a part of the web of Israeli-supported institutions whose aims are to influence the US policy on Iran. Here's how the Washington Institute describes this study:

"In preparation for the first presidential succession of the
twenty-first century, The Washington Institute has assembled three
independent Presidential Task Forces. Each is composed of its own
bipartisan, blue-ribbon group of experts and practitioners, and each is
charged with addressing a discrete issue high on the U.S. Middle East
policy agenda."

The report content and conclusions must be analyzed and discussed for their validity, and lack of it, by fair minded people because the sponsor(s) of this "Presidential Task Force" have a proven track record of biased and prejudiced views about Iran.

My aim by posting this message is to make it clear this group and this study do not carry any official weight. It is simply an attempt by a foreign country, and its supprters in the US, to give advice to President Obama, as well as influencing his policies in the ME, without being asked.

 


  •  
default

nuclear iran

by bj (not verified) on Tue Mar 10, 2009 02:39 PM PDT

This is just a reminder to all the people who are involved with iranian nuclear program wether you are against it or support it.It has been the policy of the previuos government and it looks it is also the policy of present government of iran that if any country in the region aquire nuclear capability IRAN must and will aquire nuclear capability no matter what cost.When India tested their first atomoc bomb that was the green light for iranian government (regardless type of government) to go ahead to acquire nuclear technology.I personally think that IRAN will never use atomic bomb on Isreal because iranians are smart enough not to do that.If united state or THE WEST drop 100 atomoc bomb on iran and destroy every city and town and only 10 iranians left,the first thing they do is to ACQUIRE NUCLEAR TECNOLOGY.I think the only reason iran is after nuclear tecnology is prestige,reputation and after all we are persians we can not sit back and see we are nobody.I hope that President Obama find the peaceful solution to this problem.I like The United State have a very close friendly relation with iran that iranian government could learn and change their behavior.


  •  
Fred

Excising the malignant tumor

by Fred on Tue Mar 10, 2009 02:35 PM PDT

Instead of setting up the stage for the already volatile Mideast to one way or another go nuclear a country at atime, the civilized world needs to help Iranians with material and moral support to excise this malignant Islamist republic tumor.

Only then the need for a nuclear umbrella and other expensive measures will be eliminated which in the final analysis are not an ironclad defense against the messianic Islamists.

Before it is too late help Iranians help you by overthrowing this blight.


  •