This article was too good to miss posting here.

 

From Chicago Sun-Times

 

Policy on Iran nukes seems to be off-target

April 16, 2006

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

 

Happy Easter. Happy Passover. But, if you're like the president of Iran and believe in the coming of the "Twelfth Imam," your happy holiday may be just around the corner, too. President Ahmadinejad, who is said to consider himself the designated deputy of the "hidden Imam," held a press conference this week -- against a backdrop of doves fluttering round an atom and accompanied by dancers in orange decontamination suits doing choreographed uranium-brandishing. It looked like that Bollywood finale of ''The 40-Year-Old Virgin,'' where they all pranced around to "This Is The Dawning Of The Age Of Aquarius." As it happens, although he dresses like Steve Carell's 40-year-old virgin, the Iranian president is, in fact, a 40-year-old nuclear virgin, and he was holding a press conference to announce he was ready to blow. "Iran," he said, "has joined the group of countries which have nuclear technology" -- i.e., this is the dawning of the age of a scary us. "Our enemies cannot do a damned thing," he crowed, as an appreciative audience chanted "Death to America!"

 

The reaction of the international community was swift and ferocious. The White House said that Iran "was moving in the wrong direction." This may have been a reference to the dancers. A simple Radio City kickline would have been better. The British Foreign Office said it was "not helpful." This may have been a reference to the doves round the atom.

 

You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."

 

That's how it goes with the Iranians. The more they claim they've gone nuclear, the more U.S. intelligence experts -- oops, where are my quote marks? -- the more U.S. intelligence "experts" insist no, no, it won't be for another 10 years yet. The more they conclusively demonstrate their non-compliance with the IAEA, the more the international community warns sternly that, if it were proved that Iran were in non-compliance, that could have very grave consequences. But, fortunately, no matter how thoroughly the Iranians non-comply it's never quite non-compliant enough to rise to the level of grave consequences. You can't blame Ahmadinejad for thinking "our enemies cannot do a damned thing."

 

It's not the world's job to prove that the Iranians are bluffing. The braggadocio itself is reason enough to act, and prolonged negotiations with a regime that openly admits it's negotiating just for the laughs only damages us further. The perfect summation of the Iranian approach to negotiations came in this gem of a sentence from the New York Times on July 13 last year:

 

"Iran will resume uranium enrichment if the European Union does not recognize its right to do so, two Iranian nuclear negotiators said in an interview published Thursday."

 

Got that? If we don't let Iran go nuclear, they'll go nuclear. That position might tax even the nuanced detecting skills of John Kerry.

 

By comparison, the Tehran press has a clear-sightedness American readers can only envy. A couple of months back, the newspaper Kayhan, owned by Ayatollah Khamenei, ran an editorial called "Our Immortality And The West's Disability," with which it was hard to disagree: Even if one subscribes to the view that sanctions are a sufficient response to states that threaten to nuke their neighbors, Mohammad Jafar Behdad correctly pointed out that they would have no serious impact on Iran but would inflict greater damage on those Western economies that take them seriously (which France certainly won't).

 

Meanwhile, the Washington Post offers the likes of Ronald D. Asmus, former deputy assistant secretary of state under President Clinton, arguing "Contain Iran: Admit Israel to NATO." "Containment" is a word that should have died with the Cold War, and certainly after the oil-for-food revelations: Aside from the minimal bang for huge numbers of bucks, you can't "contain" a state. Under the illusion of "containment," events are always moving, and usually in favor of the fellow you're trying to contain. But the idea that the way to "contain" Iran is to admit Israel to NATO elevates "containment" from an obsolescent striped-pants reflex to the realm of insanity.

 

All the doom-mongers want to know why we went into Iraq "without a plan." Well, one reason is surely that, for a year before the invasion, the energy of the U.S. government was primarily devoted to the pointless tap-dance through the United Nations, culminating in the absurd situation of Western foreign ministers chasing each other through Africa to bend the ear of the president of Guinea, who happened to be on the Security Council that week but whose witch doctor had advised against supporting Washington. Allowing the Guinean tail to wag the French rectum of the British hindquarters of the American dog was a huge waste of resources. To go through it all again in order to prevent whichever global colossus chances to be on the Security Council this time (Haiti? The South Sandwich Islands?) from siding with the Russo-Chinese obstructionists would show that the United States had learned nothing.

 

Bill Clinton, the Sultan of Swing, gave an interesting speech last week, apropos foreign policy: "Anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this, people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."

 

The trouble was tomorrow never came -- from the first World Trade Center attack to Khobar Towers to the African Embassy bombings to the USS Cole. Manana is not a policy. The Iranians are merely the latest to understand that.

So, the IAEA report is in. Tehran is enriching uranium, and has given the diplomatic version of the "up yours" signal to the UN.

 

So, what happens next ? Any thoughts ? How far is this really going to go ?

Good question Brad, good forum to put it in too . My short and to the point guess is that the UN process may reach minimal sanctions against Iran and that's it. Otherwise look to Israel and the USA for anything more dramatic. Final impact anywhere from nuclear weapons equipped Iran untouched by military forces, all the way to World War III as Israel actually gets wiped off the map with nuclear weapons and Iran with more than a few pockmarks itself.

Good question Brad, good forum to put it in too .

Haha, I thought so too, but ah, we're a fairly uncontroversial bunch.

 

I think the US (and its like minded allies) need to be careful about how they deal with this issue now that Iran is continuing to "play games" with the UN, making half offers of cooperation and so forth. Tehran will exploit the positions of those nations which are opposed to sanctions, those whom are unconvinced, and those whom are weak of will. Meanwhile, the reactors purr (or whatever sound they make) away ...

Now that Iran suggests they'll let the inspectors in I think the US should follow suit and play the game for a while before condemning the process. Good move by Iran, poor response by the US in not letting Iran be forced into being uncooperative with the inspectors.

I really am starting to think this guy is not taking his meds ...

 

CNN story

I really am starting to think this guy is not taking his meds ...

AGREED. I saw the article this morning as well and he is again stating that a certain middle eastern country is “a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed,”

 

An old CO of my once said, "if you are not part part of the solution, you are part of the problem."

I really am starting to think this guy is not taking his meds ...

Nah, I think he is a graduate of Saddam Hussein's school of using the "West's" diplomatic process against itself. But will he come to the same end...

Anyone who goads Israel with talk of "wiping them off the map" and "they will vanish", while trying to build a nuclear technology base, is in serious need of professional help. Seems to me he didn't learn that lesson from Saddam very well.

The saga continues ...

 

From DefenseNews

 

Iran’s Ahmadinejad Scorns EU Atomic Incentives

By CHRISTIAN OLIVER, REUTERS, TEHRAN

 

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on May 17 ruled out any idea of halting nuclear fuel work in return for EU incentives, saying the Europeans were offering "candy for gold."

Britain, France and Germany, the European Union’s three biggest powers, plan to offer Iran a light-water reactor as part of a package to induce Tehran to freeze a uranium enrichment program that the West suspects has military dimensions.

"They say we want to give Iranians incentives but they think they are dealing with a four-year-old, telling him they will give him candies or walnuts and take gold from him in return," Ahmadinejad told a crowd in the central city of Arak.

Arak is the site of a heavy-water nuclear reactor that Iran is building despite opposition from Western countries concerned that the plant’s plutonium by-product could be used in warheads.

"Iran will not accept any suspension or freeze (of nuclear work)," Ahmadinejad said in a speech that was televised live.

The United States and its EU allies want Iran to end nuclear fuel activities as a guarantee that it is not trying to make atomic weapons. Tehran says the fuel is only for power stations.

"We trusted you three years ago and accepted suspension but unfortunately this proved to be a bitter experience in Iranian history. We will not be bitten by the same snake twice," Ahmadinejad said of European diplomacy.

Iran suspended uranium enrichment work in 2003 as a goodwill gesture while it tried to forge a diplomatic solution to the stand-off in talks with France, Germany and Britain.

But the diplomacy failed and Iran resumed work on atomic fuel in August last year.

WITHDRAWAL FROM NPT?

Ahmadinejad warned that pressure on Iran over its nuclear program could produce adverse reactions. "Don’t force governments and nations which are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to pull out of it," he said.

The permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany have delayed a meeting on Iran scheduled for this week to allow more time to prepare the EU proposal, a British Foreign Office spokesman said.

The United States has taken a wary approach.

"The package has not yet been agreed," U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told Reuters. "It is under development and we’ll be meeting probably next week in Europe to look at it. I’ll be going over to London for conversations."

An EU diplomat familiar with the negotiations on Iran said on May 16 the EU3 and Solana were planning to offer Tehran a European light-water reactor if it suspended enrichment.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov urged Iran to respond constructively to proposals to break the nuclear impasse.

"Now such proposals are being prepared and we will support such an approach, counting on Iran responding constructively. At least, it is our deep conviction that this is the only way to resolve the situation," he said, Interfax news agency reported.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan said he hoped the incentives would pay dividends when diplomacy kicks off again.

"I hope it does resume and that all parties will go to the table with an open mind," he told reporters in Tokyo.

Nuclear experts say light-water reactors are harder to use for weapons purposes than heavy-water plants such as the one under construction in Arak.

The EU trio first proposed offering Iran light-water technology in 2005, after two years of negotiations. At the time, the Iranians said the offer lacked specific incentives.

EU diplomats said the new offer would be more specific, partly because they were confident of U.S. support.

But they made clear they saw little prospect that Iran would accept, and were aiming above all to demonstrate to skeptics such as Russia and China that the West was not trying to deprive Iran of civilian nuclear energy.

And, on the other side of the world (as if to maintain balance), the other wackjob stirs the pot ...

 

From DefenseNews

 

Venezuela Says Iran Might Be Buyer for Its F16s

By AGENCE-FRANCE-PRESSE, CARACAS, Venezuela

 

A Venezuelan general said May 16 that Iran might be interested in buying Venezuela’s U.S. F16 fighter jets that he has recommended selling.

The comment by General Alberto Muller Rojas, a member of the Venezuelan chiefs of staff, came a day after the United States ordered an arms sales ban against Venezuela, accusing Caracas of failing to provide assistance in the “war on terror.”

The U.S. administration highlighted Venezuela’s ties with Iran and communist led Cuba in justifying its move.

The Venezuelan foreign ministry responded by issuing a statement accusing the United States of creating the conditions to “attack” the South American country.

Venezuela is a key oil supplier to the United States, but tensions between the two countries have increased in recent months. Washington has regularly expressed concern about the activities of the leftwing President Hugo Chavez.

Amid the new tussle over the U.S. military sanctions, General Rojas said Venezuela is considering selling its ageing American F16 jets and to replace them with Russian Sukhoi-35s.

Rojas told AFP: “I made a proposal to the defense minister today to sell the F16s, whole or in parts, and to use the technology (from the planes) to attract people around the world who might be interested.”

He added: “Many countries, such as Iran, would be interested in buying the material.” Rojas said countries in Africa or Chile, which also uses F16s, might also be possible customers.

Venezuela’s F16s are more than 20 years old and the United States now refuses to maintain them.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said there was little hope that the United States would agree to Venezuela selling the fighters to Iran, another arch-foe of the U.S. administration.

McCormack told reporters: “Any time you have the sale of U.S. military equipment to a foreign government, there are clauses and there are agreements that are signed. And part of those agreements are that, without the written consent of the United States, you can’t transfer these defense articles, and in this case F16s, to a third country.

”And I would expect that, even if such a request were made, that it would not be forthcoming from the U.S. government.”

The U.S. administration on May 15 imposed a ban on arm sales and technology transfers to Venezuela, and accused Chavez’s government of failing to cooperate in the U.S.-led “war on terror.”

In announcing the ban, McCormack cited U.S. concerns over Venezuela’s ties with Iran and Cuba, which Washington considers state sponsors of terrorism, and their “intelligence-sharing relationship, which has made it very difficult for the United States to work on anti-terrorism efforts with them.”

McCormack alleged on May 16 that Venezuela has “developed a much closer and stronger intelligence-sharing relationship with the intelligence agencies of Iran and Cuba.”

The United States also was concerned that Caracas had failed to stop the transit of suspects and arms through its territory and had links to leftist paramilitaries in Colombia, the spokesman said.

The Venezuelan foreign ministry responded by saying the U.S. government is seeking to “isolate Venezuela, destabilize its democratic government and prepare the political conditions for an attack.”

It said the arms ban was designed to prevent Venezuela from being able to defend itself.

President Chavez on May 15 slammed the U.S. action as “a demonstration of the empire’s policy against Earth’s smaller countries”, but said he would not suspend oil exports to the United States.

I was thinking of the Venezuela proposal to sell the F-16's to a thirds party, obstensibly Iran. This would apparently be in violation of a 1982(?) agreement not to sell these aircraft without US approval.

 

Now, should these aircraft be sold in violation, how would they be delivered? I'm no rocket scientist but would assume that they could not fly on their own withou A2A refueling capability - could be wrong.

 

If they are shipped, imagine the fall-out should that ship mysteriously sink in route. How about in harbor. in a Venezualean harbor, in an Iranian harbor.

 

Remember the French, and all the political fall-out that followed, when their "intelligence services" sank Green Peace's Rainbow Warrior in harbor somewhere in the Pacific back in the 1985 (has it really been that long?). wiki here

 

Ah to dream, what better way to sea-trial submarine launched SEAL delievery vehicles, explosive charges, and offical denials, etc.

Venezuela has a couple of Boeing 707 tankers and their F-16s are in-flight refueling capable, so I suppose this would be the "safest" method of transfer.

 

However, my guess is that Iran wouldn't be interested in acquiring the entire fleet (22 airframes ?) for operation by the IRIAF. Although they've managed in the past with other aircraft types, Iran would be faced with the same logistics problems as the FAV. More likely, IMHO, any F-16s acquired by Iran would be absorbed into their fairly large reverse engineering industry.

Perhaps we've hijacked this thread, but is it within the believed Venezuelan Air Forces capabilities to conduct such refueling over such a great distance. I harken back to the effort needed for the British to refuel a single Vulcan Bomber round trip from Ascension Island to Stanley and back during their first strike in 1982.

 

For arguments sake, I did a quick search and came up with over 6,800nm Caracas-Bandar Abbas (disclaimer I do not claim to know what originating or destinating airfields would be utilized, I'm sure there are more applicable fields to lower this distance).

Perhaps we've hijacked this thread ...

Nope, that's what its here for.

 

but is it within the believed Venezuelan Air Forces capabilities to conduct such refueling over such a great distance.  I harken back to the effort needed for the British to refuel a single Vulcan Bomber round trip from Ascension Island to Stanley and back during their first strike in 1982. For arguments sake, I did a quick search and came up with over 6,800nm Caracas-Bandar Abbas (disclaimer I do not claim to know what originating or destinating airfields would be utilized, I'm sure there are more applicable fields to lower this distance).

 

This is conjecture, of course, but they would definitely have to use intervening airfields to reach Iran. I don't know if any African nations would be foolhardy enough to participate in such a venture, even by just permitting landing and refueling, but the world doesn't seem to have any shortage of yahoos lately.