QandO: Iran: Job One for 2005

August 23, 2004

Iran: Job One for 2005
Posted by Dale Franks

Amir Taheri writes that, no matter who becomes president this year, next year Iran will be his biggest foreign policy headache.

A nuclear-armed Iran is a prescription for more trouble than you can shake a stick at. At the moment, the Mullahs are facing a lot of pressure. Their borders with Afghanistan to the East, and Iraq to the west puts them right in the middle of two incipient democracies that they perceive to be American clients. Their population is both young and restive with clerical rule, and democratic examples in bordering nations are not conducive to the maintenance of their rule.

Moreover, the mullahs have a series of goals--a vision, if you will--about the world order as it pertains to the Mideast. First and foremost in their minds is the destruction of the "Jewish Entity", that is to say, Israel. Second is the elimination of American power in the region. Third is the imposition of direct Islamic rule--preferable of the Shi'a flavor--all throughout the Mideast. Fourth, and finally, is the expansion of Islam to the West, and eventually, the rest of the world.

These seem like fairly grandiose dreams for a poor, desert country, but, unfortunately, they think otherwise. By their reckoning, God is on their side.

It took WWII to teach Germany that putting "Gott Mit Uns" on the belt buckles of their army uniforms was no guarantee that God actually was with them. The Iranians have, as of yet, undergone no such learning experience.

But, such learning experiences as they have undergone in the past few years has brought one fact to their attention. Baghdad has a new government, and Pyongyang does not, and the mullahs expect that they know why. So the choice they must make is obvious: obtaining nuclear weapons now may very well prevent Tehran from following the path that Kabul and Baghdad have taken.

Additionally, it would allow them to begin a blackmail campaign against the Afghani and Iraqi governments, to force them to require the removal of American and NATO troops. With that out of the way, some sort of Iran/Iraq axis might be formed--with Iraq as a very junior partner--or the secession of southern, Shi'ite Iraq, and it's union with Iran might be engineered.

Also, a nuclear-armed Iran might feel far more safe in organizing and supporting terror movements throughout the west, secure from any meaningful retaliation because of the deterrent shield provided by it's nuclear arsenal.

Really, we can play this kind of game forever, and construct any number of scenarios that might play out if Iran obtains nuclear weapons. And all the scenarios have one great similarity: none of them are good for the security or interests of the world in general, or the United States in particular.

They aren't part of the "Axis of evil" for nothing, the Iranians.

TrackBack

Comments

Iran was always a more dangerous foe than Iraq. By invading Iraq without a plan for winning the peace, we have effectively strengthened Iran's hand.

Think about it: Why did we support Saddam in the '80's? Because he was an effective counter-weight against Iran. Say what you will about the Reagan people, they understood realpolitik. They understood that our interests and Saddam's coincided to the extent we each sought to limit the power of Iran.

Fast-forward 20 years. Little Bush stacks his administration with ivory tower neo-cons; there isn't a realist among the bunch. They believe they can go into Iraq, and democracy will follow immediately and that will be an effective counter-weight to Iran.

Of course, they are idiots. They have no idea how the Middle East works, and their main source of information was Chalabi. They make no plans for the post-war occupation. Even if Iraq is fertile ground for democracy, it cannot flourish in the security situation that currently exists. The security vacuum, in turn, creates opportunities for Iran to gain an upper hand in Iraq; indeed, their agents are in Iraq right now and they are a major source of arms for the insurgents there.

And now of course we learn that Chalabi has been working with the Iranians, passing them information. Of course, he was probably working with them all along, which means we were probably suckered into this war by the Iranians. In January 2003, they knew they were part of the Axis of Evil. The thought probably occurred to them to give us false intelligence so that we would invade Iraq, since after 9/11 it was pretty clear we were going to invade someone. For god's sake that's the Bush doctrine. They probably thought that our invasion of Iraq would buy them time to build their nuclear program. And they were right.

And of course the fu**ing idiots in the Bush administration listened to Chalabi even though Jordan, our ally, had already convicted him of being a crook. God, even I knew he was a liar.

And now, what is Bush's response, knowing that Iran is gaining an upper hand? Kill Sadr and his followers. Now, if Bush had a clue, he would know that Sadr is the one major Shiite cleric who DOES NOT have ties to Iran. In essence, by kiiling Sadr and his followers, we are effectively turning the keys to Shiite majority to the clerics who are in the back pocket of Iran.

So when Iran comes to dominate the Middle East, which it will, and hold the whole region hostage, which it will, blame Bush and the idiots who work for him.

For those who still support Bush and his clowns, I have one question: Is your love for Iran so great that you want another four years for the man who has basically done Iran's bidding?

Posted by: mkultra at August 23, 2004 02:03 PM

So do you agree with Kerry's strategy to give the Iranians the nuclear fuel they need?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5570503/site/newsweek/

And we say to them: "Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it." Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed.

Is he freaking kidding?

So why is Kerry the best guy to deal with Iran?

inquiring minds want to know?

Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 02:18 PM

It would also be great if Kerry attended at least 20% of the senate intel committee meetings, wouldn't it.

I mean, at least he would be in a better position to know what the heck is even going on. Maybe he wouldn't not have had his pet cat make that Iranian WMD policy decision for him?

Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 02:47 PM

Kerry could attend no meetings and still have more on the ball than Bush.

Cripes, Bush didn't the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni until just before the Iraq war started.

It's all relative, Cap'n

Posted by: mkultra at August 23, 2004 03:01 PM

I still think that the nuclear weapons and missile issues could be handily settled by one nighttime B-2 'training" mission. Providing, of course, that the intel folks have a reasonable handle on the target locations.

Posted by: John F. at August 23, 2004 03:03 PM

Nut mkultra, if Bush went after Iran, you'd have been protesting! All of the Democrats would have been protesting. And all you would be doing is bitching about how Bush invaded a sovereign nation for oil.

Fricking hypocrite. Don't you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

Do you have some sort of evidence that Iran is taking over Iraq, or just your hallucinations?

Posted by: shark at August 23, 2004 03:09 PM

Shark, I think it's become fairly obvious that Iran is behind many of our current problems in Iraq, especially as when it comes to fomenting trouble among their fellow Shia.

Posted by: Dale Franks at August 23, 2004 03:20 PM

Way to go in pointing out the hypocresy of mkultra and other democrats like him. If Bush had decided to end it with Afganistan 9a stupid decision if anything)they would be angry at him and accusing him of doing something wrong in Afganistan. Spare me the reasoning of any liberal asstard.

What we need to do is bomb and destroy both the new nuclear plant and any and all suspected weaponization and research facilites, as well as start an active campaign to kill the brains behind Iran's weapon program. The Iranians are already supporting terrorists and actively opposing our goals everywhere, so the only difference after we destroy their capability would be that they would have no nukes.

And dispite all the bravado and talk the mullahs are not going to start a fight with the US without nukes. They are evil, not stupid. We can't wait for the Israelis to do this for us (something they are sure to do if Kerry wins and starts kissing UN & EU ass) because this would have seriously negative consequences in that region for the US.

Lets face it. We are at war. So lets start acting like it and break the enemies things and kill it's people to destroy their fighting morale before we lose and end up either fertilizing the earth or living in the 13th century Islamic caliphate.

Posted by: AlexinCT at August 23, 2004 03:22 PM

boiler plate response from MKultra

News item: Bush Finds cure for Aids/Cancer

MKultra: It's all a plot for Bushilter's haliburton friends to get rich

Followup news item: Cure will be free

MKultra: it's a plot to deprive american workers of much needed jobs.

Seriously dude, do you ever think about what you write?

but hey, I get a kick out of what you write. :)

Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 03:47 PM

Pathetic responses. Let's sample some, shall we?

Here's Shark's response: "Do you have some sort of evidence that Iran is taking over Iraq, or just your hallucinations?"

Well, Shark, here's the headline of a somewhat recent article from those crazy left-wingers at Newsmax: "Syria, Iran Said Supporting Insurgency in Iraq" Here's the link: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/16/112832.shtml

Here's a snippet from another article, this is from those crazy liberals at Fox:

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

WASHINGTON — American and Iraqi joint patrols, along with U.S. Special Operations (search) teams, captured two men with explosives in Baghdad on Monday who identified themselves as Iranian (search) intelligence officers, FOX News has confirmed.

Senior officials said it was previously believed that Iran had officers inside Iraq stirring up violence, but this is the first time that self-proclaimed Iranian intelligence agents have been captured within the country.

***

Yes, Shark, these stories are just my "hallucinations." Frankly, your uninformed, mindless accusations are fairly representative of those on the right. Facts are really inconvenient little things, huh Shark?

AlexinCT, however, thinks Shark is on to something. Here's his response:

"Way to go in pointing out the hypocresy of mkultra and other democrats like him. If Bush had decided to end it with Afganistan 9a stupid decision if anything)they would be angry at him and accusing him of doing something wrong in Afganistan. Spare me the reasoning of any liberal asstard."

Sorry, AlexinCT, but you are wrong for the same reason Shark is wrong.

But more fundamentally, I really cannot even understand what you are saying. Those on the left would be mad if Bush had ended it in Afghanistan because they think he would be doing something wrong there? Huh? What the hell does that mean? Most on the left (including your's truly), believe that Afghanistan was a just war, that Bush didn't finish. I would love for him to end it there. But until then, the country will be continued to be run by warlords and Taliban remnants. Yes, Karzi is the mayor of Kabul. But that is all he is.

And then there is Cap't Joe. Instead of pointing out which parts of what I said are wrong, he asks me if I ever think about what I write. Snappy, Cap'n, snappy.

Again, tell me how Bush's actions have not strengthened the hand of Iran in the region.

Posted by: mkultra at August 23, 2004 04:14 PM

Yes, flippant on my part, but somehow it feels true nonetheless.

You NEVER answered my post about the novel Kerry idea of giving nuclear fuel to the Mullahs.

So when are you going to answer or do I have to go James Carville on yer ass. ;)

HE WON"T ANSWER THE QUESTION! HE WON'T ....

Instead all I got was the standard leftie Bush is Dumb, Bush is Dumb....dumb, dumb de dumb dumb. dumb.

Yawn, we know already. It's not like you haven't told us a million times.

Too bad that he seems a lot smarter than your side. That must be what really irqs you. He wins in 2K, he wins in 2002. Maybe he will win in 2004. Jeez, if that happens, you guys will be insufferable. :)

So nuclear fuel to mullahs, yes or no (as I glare at my screen in a Chris Matthews manner)?

Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 05:09 PM

Come on, "Most on the left (including your's truly), believe that Afghanistan was a just war,"?

Bull. F******. S*** ! Forgive my expletive.

Do I have to go back and dig up quotes on what the left was saying just before that war. Do I? What about Michael Moore, honored guest of the DNC? What did he say? What did he say in 2002, 2003?

If you felt that way, then bravo for you because you were a minority. a definite minority.

Afghanistan the neglected "just war", became a leftie meme in the recent past, and only as a war to provide slander on the Bush admin.

Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 05:35 PM

Capt.

Now, now. If you think the left is Michael Moore, then I think the right is Jerry Falwell. In case you don't realize it, the left is made up of more than Moore. Dig upo the quotes.

But if you want to deal with facts, as you say, then you will recall that the Senate vote on the use of force in Afghanistan was unanimous. In the House it was 420-1. Seems to me that those of all political stripes supported that war.

As for the failure in Afghanistan being a left-wing meme, I wish that were all it was. Unfortunately, the facts also show that the war has been a failure. Where is Osama? Why is the Taliban on the rebound? Why do the warlords run the country? Why is poppy production back up to pre-Taliban levels.

You know, the reason the Taliban took over and were even welcomed by some was because of a security vacuum that existed. Looks mighty similar today. When even Doctors without Borders find it too difficult to operate in a country, you know you are in trouble.

Posted by: mklutra at August 23, 2004 06:12 PM

Well, you convinced me. The left is the scarlet pimpernel. Hard to track down since whenever you point out someone, they say, "Oh, he's not the left".

Will the real left stand up? Who are they?

A lot of people with "progressive ideas" (that's the catch phrase isn't it?) seem to agree with Moore's books and films?

Not the real left either?

Well, tell me, point em out? My inquiring mind would love to know.

Well, the president was also given a large vote for action in Iraq but that was the unjust war, so I'm confused again!? I don't like being confused, it confounds my military mind.

So okay,

no Osama, check.

Taliban on rebound, well, I think can be disputed. It seems to come and go

warlords running country, part of it anyway. Are they in open revolt trying to bring down the central govt?

And which of those facts would be different if there were 200K troops present. I think we would have serious backlash against the presence of foreign troops. Similiar and possibly worse than Iraq. That particular fact has been endemic to the area for hundreds of years.

So how to get Osama?

The brute force solution is to invade Pakistan. But to me that seems to be a course of action with a huge downside, huge. Other than working with the Pakistani Govt as we have been doing and accepting some degree of operation failure due to the bad elements at ISI, there is very little else we can do, but then I don't work at the pentagon so I don't know what the op plans are.

What would you suggest? Threaten them? With what? No more MTV? No money? Sure, the money thingee would work. Push them right in a open rebellion against Musharraf.

But hold on, I thought that the capture of high value targets was an election trick? One of those timing things? You know, to make Kerry look bad. October surprise and all.

Gosh I am confused again. so many memes....

Posted by: capt joe at August 23, 2004 06:40 PM

mkultra

You chastise Bush for not having a plan for the peace in Iraq.

3 years into WWII what was FDR's plan for the peace or an exit strategy in Japan and Germany.

There is no such thing as a plan for peace or an exit stratedy that is worth the paper it's written on.

Posted by: EddieP at August 23, 2004 06:56 PM

Seems to me, from a stratagic viewpoint, that the best way to isolate Iran before a "takedown" operation would be to induce "regime change" on the two nations that share the borders with it. It's well known by anyone with more than two brain cells talking to each other that the Iranians have been trying to export Islamic revolution to the entire Middle East for 25 years. The Sunni-Arab regimes of the area were always more afraid of the mullahs in Tehran than they were of the Israelis in Jerusalem.
Now that we have troops based on both the eastern and westrern borders of Iran, don't you think we are beeter poised to make "policy changes?"
Why do you think that Iranian agents are woking to undermine the new Iraqi regime? They know that if Baghdad stabilizes the country, through popular elections, and establishes a multi-cultural (Kurdish-Sunni, Arab-Sunni, Arab-Shi'a) society, their own thoecracy is doomed, as are their plans in eastern Saudi-Arabia to further de-stabilize those oil fields. By the way, al-Sadr has been visiting Tehran on a constant basis since his father was murdered by Saddam. Who's taking direction from the mullahs?

Posted by: cas at August 29, 2004 02:44 AM

okej boys i woluld not distourb you so much
but it is very funny that you think that you can invide iran so easy.
iran is not iraq there military is stronger then israel
they have all the chines and russian teknik and the iranian weapen is good as the usa you can ask the one who seen the iranian soldier equuipment in afganistan. that is why bush dident invade iran because the amricans would die like pigs.
russia and china support them and all the arabic country. and dont forgott that the iranian strt with terrorism iran has 8 milion soldier who is ready to die check iran and iraq war and you would se thet iranians live is not muh worth for them self. they want to die for their country. i live in sweden and i and many more are ready to any country who attack iran and the europaind they just love ous. the think we are the one is pucj usa all the time and the funny thing is that you cant do anything, afganistan is ruled by nort alians and all their leaders come from iran and now iraq you took away our worse enemy and now the kurs and shia is commanded by ous.
and isarel what can they do as soon they attack ous or our fabrik which is ounder ground syria and egypets and hamas, hizbollah, jihad, all muslims would attack them boys politik is not so easy that you think. in usa lives many iranians and i promess you many of them would fight and i know from a securitey man that iran has many agent in usa.
you can ask a cia guy if you know one and he would explain why a attack iran is not the best resoulution and if you want to know the iranians militari capacity go to this site www.acig.org and you would never more think attack iran
sorry that i crushed all your dreams

Posted by: cyrus the great at November 25, 2004 02:54 PM