I do apologise. I realise this blog is rapidly coming to resemble a school examination, or even worse, an interrogation. Still, sometimes it's good for the brain, or the soul, or something, to put ourselves in the position of our 'glorious leaders' and try and imagine what we would do in certain circumstances. Let's start with Iran.
Obviously we are not privy to the intelligence (if any of reliability exists), nor do we know the assessments sent in by all our embassies, but even so, we can take an educated guess and therefore a semi-educated theoretical decision. There can be no doubt that Iran is striving by all means possible to achieve a nuclear weapon capacity. The proof lies in their behaviour over the last few years in which they have been given, and spurned, several opportunities to be open and above board with what they were up to. Their economy, and therefore their governmental standing with their people, is suffering grievously as a result of their secrecy. Equally, their constant threats to exterminate the state of Israel (with an unspoken implication that others might follow) have been repeated too often to be dismissed as the ravings of an exceptional fanatic. So let us take it as a given that they are indeed trying to achieve a nuclear weapon capacity and that leaves us with the next question: how far have they progressed? This is tricky. Governments of the sort that is running Iran today are usually given to hyperbole, or boasting, if you prefer, and I don't doubt that there is a certain amount of bluster involved. However, if we grant that they are trying, then it becomes a question of 'when' not 'if'.
Setting aside Israel (and that's a laugh!), for the moment, we (by which I mean 'the west') need to ask ourselves whether we can live with a nuclear Iran? To begin with, it will be a nuclear Iran with the capability of delivering missiles into the area of the middle east and the eastern Mediterranean. However, it will not be too long before, with the help of their 'allies', they possess the means to deliver missiles into western Europe. You might ask why they would do that to which I can only reply with the answer to the old question as to why dogs lick their 'blx'? - because they can!
Given all of that there seems to me to be only two possible policies by way of response. Either we go to war with them now and destroy their capability; or, we attempt a repetition of the old MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy which kept the Soviets from indulging their ambitions. On the face of it, the latter is the more attractive proposition, however, it is necessary to remember that there has been a long-held school of thought, epitomised by Enoch Powell yesterday and Andrew Alexander today, which holds that the Soviets (ie, Russia) never did hold serious ambitions to expand into western Europe having satisfied its security arrangements by holding eastern Europe as a buffer. The only time they allowed their ambitions to get the better of them was in trying to place missiles in Cuba and they very quickly backed down when faced with American determination. Turning to Tehran, can we say the same thing about the government there?
It is at this point that my lack of expertise, and access to the expertise of others, makes it almost impossible for an amateur to offer an answer. Undoubtedly there is an element of bombast is what the Iranian government says and threatens, however, there is a crucial difference, it seems to me, between them and the old Soviet government. In the latter case, rule was very much from the top down. The Soviet leadership was not bothered by thousands of communist fanatics constantly agitating to exterminate the west. The Iranian government is! Their current leadership might look all-powerful but I suspect that they are uneasily aware that at the next level down anti-Israel and anti-western fanaticism is rife, rampant and ready to take the place of any leader who shows weakness. Finally, and this is a chilling factor, there are a great many extreme Islamists who positively welcome death and martyrdom if at that same time they can bring death and destruction down onto Israel and the west. Somehow, I never saw Stalin or Brezhnev as being the stuff of martyrs! However, lest anyone suppose that I am being 'Persian-ist'(!), let me remind you that it is only a little over 50-odd years ago that we saw the suicidal martyrdom of one of our very own, home-grown, European fanatics who positively relished his and his nation's gottadamerung!
Even so, before we choose the extreme option of war, we need to consider the likely ramifications that will follow. At this point is necessary to do what the German generals failed to do, that is, to decide what the grand strategic aim is and then suit the means best likely to achieve it. For example, after Iraq and Afghanistan, I hope - oh, I do hope! - there will be no more talk of "nation-building". The purpose of military action against Iran is twofold: first, to destroy their nuclear capabilities; second, to maintain oil supplies through the Gulf. We have no interest worth the 'bones of a single grenadier' in who governs Iran although, as an adjunct to military action, it would be no bad thing if we severely damaged the current government. Not because we could entertain hopes of a better one to follow but simply pour encourager les autres. So, putting it more brutally, we must destroy - utterly - the sites and laboratories, we must kill as many scientists and technologists as possible, and as many members of the government (by which I mean the ruling elite) as possible. In effect, we go in, do what we can, and then get out!
Happily, if that is quite the word, with today's sophisticated weaponry that is an achievable aim. There is no such thing as a 'surgical strike' because 'shit always happens' but every effort should be made to avoid civilian collateral damage. However, I suspect such an operation can only be achieved by the Americans and not by the Israelis acting alone. There is no avoiding the fact that such an action will have huge repurcussions in the world's economy but they need not be long-lasting. Iran controls virtually the entire east coast of the Gulf and keeping their raiders away from the oil tankers will be tricky. However, the west coast is almost entirely controlled by mega-rich oil states who, being Arab not Persian, can be relied upon to help in the policing of the waters upon which they rely for their wealth.
So what would I do? I would go for "war, war" and no more "jaw, jaw"!
Additional: So much for my (and others I have read) amateur opinion that Israel would be unable to inflict really serious damage on the Iranian facilities. Here is a report by David Goldman at PJ Media quoting a long article in Die Welt by a German defence expert, Hans Rühle, with particular knowledge of missile warfare:
Rühle is highly confident that Israel could knock out Iran’s nuclear program for a decade or more with about 25 of its 87 F-15 fighter-bombers and a smaller number of its F-16s. Each of the F-15s would carry two of the GBU-28 bunker busters, with the F-16s armed with smaller bombs. [...]
Most importantly, Rühle believes that it would take Iran a decade to restore its capabilities — with the exception of Isfahan — unless special forces could inflict more damage from the ground than was possible from the air. There are risks, of course: the Russians might have secretly given Iran more advanced surface-to-air missiles; refueling might be interdicted along a route that overflies potentially hostile countries; and Iran’s proxies (Syria, Hizbollah, Hamas) might retaliate. Nonetheless, he concludes that Israel could lastingly disrupt Iran’s nuclear program.
To paraphrase Claudius, again: Do it, Israel!
It is looking serious, isn't it? Several points here.
First, who are we relying upon for the information about Iran's capabilities and ambitions? I am with you on this, and fully believe they are going for tactical nukes. But are we really so sure? The "WMD" issue with Iraq weighs heavily. We were lied to and misled by a wide range of people on both sides of the Atlantic.
Second, an American friend told me over dinner yesterday that he is convinced it will happen, and that America will lead. His reasoning is that even Obama will not risk looking weak in the run up to elections, and so the Israelis have him by the proverbials. The "April or May" scenario might be replaced by an autumn "sweet spot", when the election enters critical mode.
Third, I have over the course of the last few years known many Iranians, and none of them ever expressed any hostility towards the West in general, or to Israel. Concern over war in general, but no expansionist or aggressive tendencies. They all seem to believe that their nuclear science is peaceful. This is not the case with their Arab co-religionists (Pakistani, Gulf States, Syrians, etc) that I have known. Many of the younger ones were frothing with anti-western feeling, and were prepared to openly justify killing Yanks and Jews. So what is going on here? Are the Iranians shit-scared of their leadership? Have the liberal nice ones left while there is still time? Are the leadership unrepresentative? I have no idea, but it gives cause for thought...
Fourth, there is the wider economic dimension in Iran. I suspect that if we hit the nuclear programme, and do sufficient collateral damage, the whole regime will collapse and people will starve. I doubt if they have the ability to mount an effective blockade once we have given them a reason to mount it, so to speak.
Finally, our leadership. It needs Churchillian resolve, doesn't it? And instead, we have got...
Posted by: Whyaxye | Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 12:05
Good points, 'W'.
1: In an uncertain world not made any more certain by MI6 (or at least, Head Office rather than the guys in the field) I think I would rely on Israeli intelligence. They have, to say the least, a vested interest!
2: Tricky one with respect to Obama. I simply don't know how gung-ho the American public is in support of Israel these days. A 'judicious', 'middle-man' approach might well go down well. Also, of course, he has a large and very anti-Israeli section in his own party which he would not be eager to upset.
3: Well, it's that 'generation gap' thing again, even in Iran! I stick to my point that there is a vociferous but powerful section of the Iranian population (most of them in the country and of a type you would be unlikely to meet in the west) which would rejoice at the destruction of Israel, and would take revenge on a weak leader.
4: I doubt your apocalyptic scenario. Iran is an agrarian society capable of supplying basics and if a half reasonable government came into power world aid would flow quickly.
Finally, "our leadership". I'm not sure we want or need leadership in this matter. We have no power to intervene. All we can do is offer 'diplomatic support' (or, hot air, as it is usually known) to the Americans and the Israelis. In fact, you touch upon a point - our powerlessness - about which I have been meaning to post for some time. Perhaps next week - you have been warned!
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 13:41
Interesting.
One good reason to own a nuke - no-one dare make you desperate (or steal your oil).
Perhaps all this talk has something to do with campaign funding in the USA. A risky strategy, banging war drums may bring in the cash but a fair number of Americans are fed up chucking money and lives down the drain and might just vote against politicians too supportive of an Israeli attack. Take the cash and lose the election?
If the Iranians have any sense they will avoid being goaded into precipitate action in the election run up and remember that revenge is a dish best taken cold - and of course keeping your nuke plant is the best revenge. I do wonder if this is the last opportunity Israel will get to secure ongoing American support as political and financial influence shifts to China and Asia.
Finally, any fool can attack Iran but what then? Remember that a nuclear-free world is a fairy story, get used to it.
Posted by: rogerh | Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 14:53
Thanks, Roger, and welcome to D&N.
You are right to stress the point that it is no longer a nuclear free world. No-one should deny that it is possible - just - that even if half the world is so armed they might all forebear to use them. I think what alarms me with Iran is its proximity (in ICBM terms) to Europe (or ME, as I prefer to think of it!) If the Israelis can do the job and give us a dozen years of a breather then good luck to them.
As for the Americans, like you, I sense they are in a state of flux at the moment and that old realities are fading. "Interesting times" - and you know what they say about them!
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 15:34
Oh David. Where's your Christmas spirit?
It was just some fourteen months ago...
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/153508.html
Posted by: JK | Sunday, 19 February 2012 at 16:37
I drank it all!
Posted by: David Duff | Monday, 20 February 2012 at 09:40
Why not add some radar absorbent materials or jammers on the tankers? That should make it tougher for Iran to spot them.
Posted by: fuel trailers | Monday, 23 July 2012 at 09:15