| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Reading the tea leaves - Bush's Strategy on Iran |
| 2005-02-03 |
| I believe the President has settled on the direction he is going to pursue with Iran. If I am reading the tea leaves correctly, it would appear a pattern has begun to emerge in the recent statements by President Bush, Condolezza Rice and others. What is the new strategy? Let's begin with President Bush's State of the Union speech. The President warned the Iranian regime that he is willing to significantly ramp up his support for the Iranian people: "And to the Iranian people, I say tonight:The President has recently warned Iran to end its nuclear enrichment program and that he has not taken the military option off the table. At the same time, he also made clear his interest in pursuing a "diplomatic solution." Why A diplomatic solution? First, military action in Iran would likely be counter productive. Military action would almost certainly have the unintended consequence of killing large numbers of civilians and thus create a "rally around the government" effect. This would provide a tremendous opportunity for the regime to argue that the US government does not really "care about the people" of Iran. Thus alienating the very people we want to support. Second, it is also unlikely that such military action could permanently stop Iran's nuclear effort. To accomplish this would require an invasion of Iran and therefore a much larger military force than we have available at this time, so we are told. Third, Europe is unlikely to ever support military action against Iran and the US public would also find it hard to support it unless there was an imminent threat. (Nearly everyone would want irrefutable proof of Iran's nuclear weapons program). So what options are left? An effective non military response to the Iranian threat would require the administration find an issue that is universally accepted in order to gain international support. Such international support was essential in the recent popular revolt in the Ukraine. Such an issue already exists. I believe the issue the administration intends to focus on is human rights in Iran. If you follow the news on Iran, the administration has begun focusing on the human rights issue as it relates to Iran. Here are a few examples: President Bush alluded to it in his inaugural address: From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time. ... America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. Condoleezza Rice: Iranians "suffer under a regime that has been completely unwilling to deal with their aspirations and that has an appalling human rights record". BBCEven Senator Brownback, the new chairman of the Helsinki Commission says he plans to highlight Iranian human rights issues with Europe. The NY Sun reports: The plan by Senator Brownback, a Republican from Kansas, is in keeping with the president's commitment to spread freedom throughout the world...Europe and the UN have a long history of advocating human rights. Europe has tied increased trade with Iran to improvements in their human rights record. European leaders advocacy for Human Rights in Iran bought them popular political support at home at very little cost. Europeans are proud of their leaders stand for Human Rights. It was no surprise to Europeans that the Iranian human rights lawyer, Shirin Ebadi, won the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize. If the US makes Human Rights in Iran a centerpiece of its Iran policy, the EU and the UN will have to support it. Russia and China would find it difficult to oppose it. President Bush's support for "their issue" will likely be perceived by Europeans generally as a European victory. Popular support could force their leaders to join the US effort. If Iran refuses to permanently end its uranium enrichment program, as they claim, the EU will have to withdraw its offer of increased trade. Instead, I would then expect an ever increasing demand of the international community to end all trade (the EU's only real weapon) until the regime guarantees the Iranian people's human rights. Already British firms such as BP have declared that they will not invest further in Iran. US firms have also taken similar positions and I expect we will see an ever growing number of international firms ending their business relations with the Iranian regime. Why will this help bring down the regime? First, the people of Iran will at long last receive the international attention and support they have been pleading for. This support will encourage the people to stand against the regime and various elements in government will be forced to decide whether to support the people of Iran or their unpopular leaders. Thus the regime will face a serious dilemma. On the one hand, cracking down on dissent will further alienate the regime and likely result in an end to international investments/trade in Iran. On the other hand, the regime cannot comply with this without risking encouraging a popular revolt. Iran's presidential elections are scheduled for June. The hardline elements in Iran have been hoping to further consolidate their power and will not likely be interested in being pressured by the international community on human rights. If the Iranian regime cracks down on popular dissent this time, the international community will be watching as never before. Crack downs will lead to further doubts by the international business community. As more firms pull away from Iran, investment dollars will dry up. Iran needs the investment dollars to keep the regime in power. Unemployment is already unbearable. Significant increases in unemployment will only fuel more civil unrest. It would appear the regime will be in a no win situation. President Bush is about to travel to Europe. If I am right, we will see a mending of relations and a new unity among the US and the EU. Time appears to be running out for the Mullahs of Iran. It may prove to be a very hot summer in Iran. |
| Posted by:DoctorZin |
| #6 I tend to agree with the article, but I also agree with Jarhead. We are stretched too thin for any more major projects in the style of Iraq. We sure do not have the occupation/nation building resources to take on another project. What we will need is a bunch of crowbars, i.e., leverage in key places to multiply our application of force. It seems to me that Syria needs a few well placed crowbars. Their actions or condoning of nefarious activities inside their country has been a source of misery to Iraqis and a source of loss of our troops in Iraq. Iran has a forward base in Syria. Take it away or neutralize it and more heat goes onto the MMs. At the risk of being maudlin and over the top, I think that Bush, in his SOU address, raised the battle to a moral issue, just like Lincoln did in the War between the States. Fredrick Douglass used to work on Lincoln to take the moral high ground and to include liberation of the slaves as one of the war aims, and not to just explain the war as saving the Union. When the moral high ground was taken, it made the enemy weaker in people's eyes. Doing this with human rights in Iran is a smart move by President Bush. We do not have the options in Iran that we had in Iraq. A regime change is an option that needs to be pursued. The human rights thing ought to make the EUniks uncomfortable, well, maybe. I would not count on it. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-02-03 11:06:23 PM |
| #5 I think the author calls it pretty well. We are so engaged w/Iraq right now that Iran is three years off, at soonest. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2005-02-03 9:27:46 PM |
| #4 I think there will be military action of one sort or another. Remember, we don't have to stop their nuke program forever -- just delay it long enough for the bums to be tossed out. |
| Posted by: someone 2005-02-03 8:50:52 PM |
| #3 I generally agree with this analysis. I particularly agree that an Iraq style invasion is both unfeasible due to manpower constraints and would risk causing Iranians to rally around the government. Still, I have always been skeptical that a bunch of coffeehouse students have the spine to stick up to the harsh government crackdown that would follow any serious revolt. However, the main vulnerabilty of the Mullacracy is that the sham elections they hold are a tacit admission that democracy is legitimate. This gives us, and the liberty seeking Iranians we support, a rhetorical opportunity with every election season to support human rights and real, free choice in leaders. What's missing is a charasmatic, effective leader to become the alternative in waiting and followers willing to take up arms should he or she not be given their due. It's the latter missing requirement that distinguishes Iran from Georgia or the Ukraine. We better be contacting to the more sensible members of the Iranian military as Anonymoose states. I also hope to see us supporting organized exile movements. In the 'election crisis' scenario I think is our best hope, limited use of US airpower and ground troops are conceivable if not likely. I'm no military expert, but I would expect missions to include interdiction Revolutionary Guard movement against friendly military formations, destroying secret police buildings, securing nuclear materials, etc. Our presence in Iraq would make this more doable than it would have been in the past despite our problems there. If this best case scenario fails to work in time, massive air strikes should remain an option (taking this option of the table as advocated recently by Straw and Clinton is insane) but I would have to think they will be ineffective as the Iranians have had a long time to dig in. We may just fall back on our strategic triad -- second strike anhilation. |
| Posted by: JAB 2005-02-03 8:30:05 PM |
| #2 ....don't think we have the boots available for such an action - unless we knew exactly which facilities were key. I don't think we have that kind of intel. It's a tough case. The diplo route may take a very long time. Military action probably can't guarantee the results we seek. At the very least, we need to ratchet up the pressure and be ready to face a nuclear Iran and be ready to back Israel if / when they take action. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-02-03 8:03:02 PM |
| #1 I would not underestimate the possibility of a military assault using unusual tactics. For example, bottling up the cities and other strongpoints, then attacking the rural nuclear facilities. The purpose of this is to cut off their military from their civilian population--met in the field they could only surrender or die. This would amaze the Iranians by *not* destroying their cities, and most likely *capturing* most of their army. This would leave the Mullahs stuck in the cities, trying to motivate a civilian population to "go out there and die". Highly unlikely that this would last long. Then, we would make a deal with their military leaders that *they* should rule Iran as a junta until *fair* elections could be held--mullahs need not apply. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-02-03 7:05:28 PM |