Hoder in Jail in Iran

Iranian blogger Hossein Derakhshan has been arrested by Iranian security (h/t Harry's Place).

Hoder - as he was widely known in the blogs is another OG blogger who has lived in Canada for some time to keep himself out of the hands of the Iranian police. While anti-mullah, he's resolutely pro-Iranian, and we've actually knocked heads a bit on that.

The Guardian writes:

A prominent Iranian blogger has been arrested in Tehran and accused of spying for Israel after visiting the country with the aim of being "a bridge between Iranian and Israeli people".

Hossein Derakhshan, 33, was reported by the Iranian website Jahan News to have confessed during initial interrogations to being involved in espionage.

The Jahan News site, which is widely believed to be linked to the Iranian intelligence services, also said he had been described in Jewish newspaper articles as a "friend of Israel".

Derakhshan is known in Iran as the Blogfather after effectively launching the country's craze for blogging. He has claimed 20,000 people a day read his postings.

He holds joint Iranian-Canadian citizenship and left Tehran for Toronto in 2000 after hardline opponents of then president, Mohammad Khatami, closed down the reformist newspapers he worked on. He also lived in London for a while.

Derakhshan had returned to Tehran three weeks ago. His blogs, in Persian and English, have been suspended.

And Just For A Change-Up From Petty Politics

Here's the IAEA's briefing (pdf, very interesting) on the Iranian 'nuclear laptop' (h/t Laura Rozen).

Talk amongst yourselves...

Stupidest Idea This Week

Here's a sooper-genius proposal for dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions:

We propose that Iran's efforts to produce enriched uranium and other related nuclear activities be conducted on a multilateral basis, that is to say jointly managed and operated on Iranian soil by a consortium including Iran and other governments. This proposal provides a realistic, workable solution to the US - Iranian nuclear standoff. Turning Iran's sensitive nuclear activities into a multinational program will reduce the risk of proliferation and create the basis for a broader discussion not only of our disagreements but of our common interests as well.

read the rest! »

Weekend Must-Read #2

Over at Arms Control Wonk a discussion on Russia's - surprisingly - hardening line on Iran's weapons programs.

I suspect that the main driver, however, is the remarkable shift in U.S. politics in the aftermath of the November 2007 Iran NIE. The NIE's headline finding that Iran abandoned nuclear warhead and weaponization in the fall of 2003 has eliminated the possibility of U.S. military action against Iran's nuclear facilities for the foreseeable future. This frees up Russia and other countries to toe a harder line against Iran without worrying about legitimating U.S. military action.

If this interpretation is true, it means that the litany of pundits and commentators complaining that the NIE plays right into Iran's hands have it exactly backwards: by effectively taking U.S. military action off the table for now, the NIE makes it easier, not harder, for countries like Russia to send Iran a stronger signal about its enrichment program. After all, Russia (and China, for that matter) do not want Iran to develop the capability to deploy nuclear weapons; until the Iran NIE, however, this concern was counterbalanced by a worry that the United States might launch another war in the Middle East.

Interesting. I can see some strong counterarguments, but want to do some thinking first.

Gulf States Requesting ABM-Capable Systems

Patriot PAC-2
(click to view full)

A recent US National Intelligence Assessment [redacted NIE summary] believes Iran's nuclear program has stopped, but others, including the United Nations and Israel are more skeptical. Intelligence is always a very uncertain and ambiguous exercise, and occasionally features assessments like the somewhat infamous CIA NIE whose 1962 judgment was that there were no Soviet missiles in Cuba.¹ Uncertainty creates perceptions of risk, and perceptions of risk lead to behaviors aimed at reducing that risk. Iraq is no longer a missile/WMD threat, Iran's regular and Revolutionary Guards air forces remain relatively weak, and Iran's ballistic missiles based on North Korean designs lack accuracy. Still, even a lucky conventional missile could create issues in some Gulf states if it hit important oil-related infrastructure, or hit the larger and more nebulous target of business confidence.

Arms spending is an incomplete but very concrete way of tracking a state's real assessment of threats and priorities. It's becoming clear that Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, have stepped up their defense spending in recent years. Those expenditures cover a range of equipment, but anti-ballistic missile capabilities appear to be rising to the top of the priority list. Now over $10 billion worth of Patriot missile upgrade requests in the UAE and Kuwait are shining a spotlight on the region's new defense priorities.

Read the rest at Defense Industry Daily...

Iran - It's Still Not That Dark, And We Still Have A Really Big Flashlight

I'll assume you're all familiar with the news about the new NIE about Iran and the Bomb.

Reading it ought to give us all an appreciation for how difficult it is to make judgements in areas where the facts seem apparent but are really so unclear (see: AGW).

My position on Iran hasn't changed.

read the rest! »

"the Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran"

The IAEA report on Iran is available. You can download a copy here.

It's short, and an interesting read.

The history of Iran's program may remain shrouded:

8. As previously reported to the Board (GOV/2005/67, paras 14–15), the Agency was shown by Iran in January 2005 a copy of a hand-written one-page document reflecting an offer for certain components and equipment said to have been made to Iran in 1987 by a foreign intermediary. Iran stated in 2005 that this was the only remaining documentary evidence relevant to the scope and content of the 1987 offer. On 9 October 2007, the Agency was provided with a copy of the document.

Certain aspects of the document indicate that it dates from 1987. However, the originator of the document has still not been identified.

read the rest! »

Chinese J-10 Fighter to Iran, Syria?

Chinese J-10
(click to view full)

Former Soviet government "news" agency RIA-Novosti reports that Iran has signed a contract with China for the delivery of two squadrons (24) of its J-10 fighter planes, which are powered by Russian engines and avionics. Representatives of the Iran Aircraft Manufacturing Industrial Company said China would deliver the jets during the in 2008-2010 time frame. Novosti adds that "Experts, estimating one fighter at $40 million, put the contract's value at $1 billion." Iran's most advanced fighters are currently MiG-29s, many of which once belonged to Saddam Hussein and fled to Iran during the 1991 Desert Storm war, and a handful of F-14 Tomcats that have been ingeniously maintained over the years.

The Chinese J-10 is based on plans sold by the Israelis in the 1980s, after their Lavi fighter program had been canceled. The massacre at Tiananmen Square ended cooperation with western aerospace firms, however, forcing China to install Russian AL-31FN engines instead of American F100/F110s. This in turn forced a slew of alternations owing to changes to the aircraft's new inlet requirements, weight distribution, center of gravity, et. al. Russian avionics with their own set of space requirements also had to be installed and tested to replace American/Israeli equipment, which led to further design changes. Then there were the indigenous Chinese efforts, including the Type 1473 pulse-Doppler (PD) fire-control radar to replace Israel's Elta or the American APG-68. The end result entered service in 2003 after well over a decade in development, and is a rather different aircraft than the Lavi. Nonetheless, it retains the aircraft's canard-delta layout and some of its capabilities, and its aerodynamic layout and known/reported characteristics suggest an aircraft that is equal or slightly superior to American F-16 C/Ds.

J-10s based near key nuclear bomb development sites, along with new Russian air-defense systems, could complicate Israeli pre-emptive strikes - though many other variables would also come into play for such scenarios.

But first, the deal has to pan out. China is denying the story. Which doesn't necessarily make it untrue, but does make it interesting. See Defense Industry Daily's full report...

Bomb, Bomb Iran? Don't Think So...

Commenter Beard sent an email asking my view of the recent flurry of reports that Bush is serious - darn serious - about attacking Iran before he leaves office.

My sense of humor is pretty dark these days, but the picture that came to mind was Bush sitting on the stand on January 20 2009, holding up his hand, and picking up a cell phone and telling the staffer on the other side "Go for it! Bomb the c**p out of them!" and then smiling at his successor. "How do like that," in the words of not-yet-ex-Senator Craig.

But it's actually a serious issue, and let me take a moment to lay out my thoughts.

Yeah, there's a whole lot of public-intellectual chatter about Iran right now. Go see Daniel Drezner's roundup for a good summary of it all.

read the rest! »

(Thirty) Two Short Articles About Iran

(Sorry, I just love the Glenn Gould movie)

So I broke down and subscribed to Foreign Affairs. I want to learn what the smart folks (like Dan Drezner, who has an article in the Marc/April issue) are thinking and writing about. I acknowledge my lack of expert knowledge and think it'd be good to hear what expert have to say.

So this month, along with Drezner's article, there's a lead article by Ray Takeyh on Iran, in which he argues strongly for detente. He argues, in fact, for the inevitability of detente, because of the strength of Iran.

read the rest! »

Meet Iran's Revolutionary Liberals

Abdullah Mohtadi, Secretary General of the reformed and mainstream left Iranian Komala Party

SULEIMANIYA PROVINCE, NORTHERN IRAQ -- One of the roads leading out of the city of Suleimaniya in Iraqi Kurdistan might as well be renamed Revolutionary Road. Two armed compounds inhabited by exiled revolutionary Iranian leftists were built less than a mile away from each other. My colleague Patrick Lasswell and I accidentally found ourselves in the armed camp of the military wing of the Communist faction of the Komalah Party when we intended to meet with the more moderate social democrats up the street. A few days later we returned to the area and met with the right people.

The Communists hosted us warmly and kindly gave us a tour of their camp. But the liberals who split with them in the late 1980s proved to be far and away their intellectual and political superiors.

Secretary General Abdullah Mohtadi and Political Bureau member Abu Baker Modarresi sent two men to pick us up from our hotel -- just to make sure we made it to the right place. They drove us to their safe house under armed guard less than an hour away from the Iranian border. We met over coffee and cigarettes.

MJT: You are both from Iran?

Mohtadi: Yes, yes we are.

MJT: How long have you been here?

Mohtadi: The first time our headquarters came inside Iraqi Kurdistan was in late 1983, when we lost the last liberated area in Iranian Kurdistan. So we moved our headquarters to Iraqi Kurdistan at that time, which was under Saddam Hussein. For some months they were reluctant to accept us, but they realized, okay, we are against the Islamic regime.

MJT: Did you ever have any problems with Saddam's government?

Mohtadi: Yes. They shelled us. Also, we are the only Kurdish Iranian party that has been gassed by Saddam Hussein.

read the rest at michaeltotten.com

Bush And Iran - Full House or Ace-High?

I want to raise a heretical notion: I actually think that Bush is playing a bad tactical hand well in Iran.

Look, there is no way in hell that he's going to undertake meaningful military action against the Iranians. A few shells may get lobbed at boats that approach the fleet too closely, and I have no doubt that our Special Ops community is doing whatever it is they do in situations where they don't get to "blow shit up and kill people." But the political cards within the US are dealt, and Bush's hand does not include an "Invade Iran" card.

That doesn't mean things aren't happening, or that we should be paying close attention. many sources have commented on the increasingly fragile grip on power of the populist nutjob Ahmadinejad. Having three carrier groups offshore has to be a source of internal pressure, as does unanimous UN resolutions cracking down on international finance, a declining oil sector, etc. etc.

From Global Voices, some Iranian opinions:

read the rest! »

Do Something

Ali Eteraz is on a tear again...this time he's writing to ask people to take action to save seven women sentanced to be stoned to death for adultery in Iran.

He's got facts, impassioned argument, and useful links. Go over, take a look, and do something.

'Stand Against Women Stoned to Death You Apathetic Monsters'

It's the State, stupid!

A debate over matters of faith is drawing attention away from a very necessary debate over matters of international politics

Even as the world grapples with the threat from radical Islamist terrorists and watches with concern---both silent and noisy---of a 'return to the roots' movement among the world's Muslims, a good part of the debate has focused on whether or not Islam is as peaceful as many of its moderate adherents claim it to be (via Desipundit). As Retributions points out in a recent post, the debate over the tenets of Islam is misdirected. It is also misleading and ultimately counter-productive for it plays into the very hands of those who benefit from both Islamist terrorism and from the war against it.

read the rest! »

Saddam's delusion

In his classic book, Man's Search for Meaning, Auschwitz survivor and psychiatrist Dr. Viktor Frankl related what it was like to be processed through the camp, to face sortings by the SS where captives were sent to their deaths (about 90 percent were every time, he said) or to work parties.

Frankl wrote that when facing a sorting, it was very common for captives to exhibit what psychiatrists called “the delusion of reprieve.” Every individual so deluded - and that meant almost all the captives, said Frankl - would latch onto the very thinnest hope of being selected to live and mentally make it a certainty. Frankl wrote that condemned prisoners in ordinary times also often exhibit this delusion, convincing themselves that an executive remission of the sentence was on the way, sometimes right up until the hour of execution. People with terminal illnesses or facing severe adversities short of death often exhibit this delusion, too, on very little or no real-world basis at all.

Saddam Hussein believes the Americans may reinstall him as president of Iraq, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report on Sunday, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Saddam Hussein has no illusions, his chief lawyer says. As he sits in his prison cell reading the Quran and writing poetry, he knows the inevitable is coming -- a death sentence handed down by the Iraqi court trying him for crimes against humanity.

Yet Saddam refuses to submit to the fate that awaits him, Khalil al-Dulaimi, said, for he believes there is a way out:

President Bush will use the court's sentence as leverage to try to persuade Saddam to tamp down the insurgency, he said, so desperate are the Americans to stanch their losses.

In his madness, Saddam believes the Americans might even reinstall him as president of Iraq!

Nutty as a fruitcake.

Cross-posted at donaldsensing.com

Dhimmi badges redux

Now that Amir Tahari has been invited to the White House, certain bloggers are dusting off their outrage at the supposed calumny of the "Iran mandates badges for Jews" story. So let's dust off some context:

1) Taheri is a respected and knowledgeable pundit on the Middle East, who was born and raised in Iran and knows his people and speaks their language.

2) Making dhimmis wear special clothing was a common practice in Islamic countries throughout the centuries. Either the Nazis thought of it independently, or got the idea from Islam, but certainly not the other way around. Iran has mandated special clothing for Jews and Christians and Zoroastrians in the past, in addition to other institutionalized discriminatory practices which still exist.

3) Taheri and several Iranian expat leaders still claim that this is being discussed and considered by the Iranian regime. Given the above, and Iran's other aggressive and reactionary behavior, it is not unreasonable to assume that until we know otherwise.

Hush hush, keep it down now, voices carry

Iran tests its Shihab 3 missile.

Bush says, Not so fast, buddy! (Comment from that site: "I remember a Bugs Bunny short where he gets slapped in the face with a glove. He then proceeds to return the slap, but not before putting a brick inside the glove, first. Ah, that wascawwy Pwesident…")

Predictably, some Jews are saying "Shhh, you'll just make things worse!"

read the rest! »

What To Do About Iran, Indeed.

Greg D. over at Belgravia Dispatch has a long post on 'What To Do About Iran?' In it, he lays out a solid case for negotiation.

Go on over and read it (and admire the picture of the happy Greg and Mrs. D dancing).

Back?

So what do I think about it? I think that he's 1/3 right. I think that the path of negotiation he lays out is something we ought to be doing, and it should be front-and-center in the attention of everyone, because if it works, it'll be the least-bad outcome in an array of bad outcomes. And God knows, it could work.

So what's the other 2/3, you ask?

read the rest! »

OK, Then. I May Wind Up Eating Some Crow On This...

I've argued for a while that Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons are almost certainly ongoing, but that we had a reasonably long runway before the threat became - wait for it - imminent.

The U.N. atomic agency found traces of highly enriched uranium on equipment from an Iranian site linked to the country's defense ministry, diplomats said Friday, adding to concerns that Tehran was hiding activities aimed at making nuclear arms.

The diplomats, who demanded anonymity in exchange for revealing the confidential information, said the findings were preliminary and still had to be confirmed through other lab tests.

Initially, they said the density of enrichment appeared to be close to or above the level used to make nuclear warheads. But later a well-placed diplomat accredited to the International Atomic Energy Agency said it was below that, although higher than the low-enriched material used to generate power and heading toward weapons-grade level.

Still, they said, further analysis could show that the find matches others established to have come from abroad. The IAEA determined earlier traces of highly enriched uranium were imported on equipment from Pakistan that Iran bought on the black market during nearly two decades of clandestine activity discovered just over three years ago.

I don't think it fundamentally changes the dynamic of what we need to do; but I do think that the responses to this in London and Paris are going to very much worth watching.

Well, It Looks Like That's getting Cleared Up.

OK, here's an interesting update on the meaning of the letter (from the Iranian "Islamic Republic News Agency"):

President says his letter to President Bush was invitation to Islam Jakarta, May 11, IRNA

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said here Thursday that his letter to President George W. Bush did not concern the nuclear dossier, but rather was an invitation to Islam and the prophets culture.

He made the above remarks in reply to a reporter while attending press conference on his letter to President Bush in Jakarta in the afternoon of the third day of his stay in Jakarta.

Here's what reads to me a like a crux phrase: when he says "And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path. Marium." it seems clear that he's calling on Bush to serve Allah - not to join in a mutual worship of their respective single Gods.

On Serving God - Details From The Letter

OK, in light of the earlier discussion on translation, let me pick a section of the Le Monde translation (I'd love a link to a Farsi original - if anyone has it (I looked on Iran News but couldn;t igure it out) to ask some questions about and let's see if we can generate a consensus about what was said and what it means.

We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to salvation. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH) and believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.

We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well: [19.36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path. Marium.

read the rest! »

Gonna Sit Right Down And Write Myself A Letter...

Le Monde has an English translation of Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad's letter to George Bush.

It doesn't have a lot to do with diplomacy, not as we practice it.

And, as always, since it's a translation - note the post below on the issues with good translations.

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point – that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to join them?

Mr President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda

Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

On Translation

In response to the tempest-in-a-teacup over translation in the Juan Cole post below, I went looking for a favorite quote by Nabokov on translation in Google.

To make this into a true translation—an expression that maps to the mental images and behavioral impact of what Dogen said—we have to go deeper. This is where some people get cold feet, saying this is going beyond “translation” and entering the realm of “interpretation”. Come on. Every single person that reads Dogen’s words is interpreting them. It’s certainly not unreasonable to ask the translator, presumably well-informed, to participate in this interpretive process.

So to make “all-law” meaningful to Westerners, what should we do with the “law” (?, dharma)? Some Buddhist dictionaries list as many as several dozen meanings of the term. But it’s a fair guess that in this case the meaning is “phenomena” or “things”. So we have “many things”, which is indeed how Tanahashi translates this.

read the rest! »

An Iranian Talks About Cole's Farsi Skillz

In the comments to my post on Army-of-Juan Cole's deranged reply to Hitchens, Tino Sanandaji, an Iranian (apparently living in Chicago) drops by to shed some light on things (note that our comments "bozes" don't have spellcheck and my comments usually have more typos than his):

I am Iranian, and I can tell you Cole is wrong.

Let's start with simple fact, that is not directly relevant. He writes that Khomaini said the Shah government "must go". But "az bain bayad berad" does not mean "go", it litterarly mean something like "must cease to exist", and the most direct translation would be "must be destroyed".

Now to the latter part:

"bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad"

The translation is not perfect, the dear Professor is not convewing the action implyied the sentence, as I or any Iranian would read it.

read the rest! »

Iran's Regime, In Its Own Words

Such reasonable people. I can't understand why there's a problem here.

Reza Pahlavi on Iran & Its Democratic Opposition

Human Events has an interview with Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah of Iran who is now an advocate of a democratic Iran that can decide if it wants a monarchy or not. It's interesting on a number of levels - see esp. his scathing and accurate analysis of Iran's "reformers", his thoughts about the window of time left re: Iran's nuclear program and measures to take, and his view of Iran's Revolutionary Guard (the regime's core power base and praetorian guard) as a disjointed set of individual fifedoms, some of whom could be turned with the right persusasion:

"That explains the psychology of the regime. It also explains that the whole militia is not under one core unit. It's a whole mafia. There are various families of Revolutionary Guards. Each has its own portfolio and agenda. Some are behind Al Qaeda. Some are involved in Syria. Some are involved in Bekaa Valley. Some are involved in Iraq, etc. And they have their own independent means of finances. They don't have to report back to the government. They have their own bases of income, free ports, what have you."

The down-side is that if this is true, it also magnifies the risk of a nuclear-armed Iran another several-fold - because it means that you can't assume reliable control of those weapons by the government.

I was also paying attention to his efforts to create an umbrella group for a democratic opposition.

read the rest! »

Mouth-Frothingly Good

Future Yale Department Chair Army-of-Juan Cole comes completely, jaw-droppingly unhinged today. Go check it out before he "Winston Smiths" it (note - gruesome pictures of wounded soldiers).

Actually, first, go check out the Christopher Hitchens piece that triggered Cole's frothing scenery-chewing, then go over to Juan's site and snicker.

All the warmongers in Washington, including Hitchens, if he falls into that camp, should get this through their heads. Americans are not fighting any more wars in the Middle East against toothless third rate powers. So sit down and shut up.

One, two, three, four! We don't want your stinking war!

We are not going to see any more US troops come home in body bags at Dover for the sake of some Cheney affiliate grabbing the petroleum in Iran's Ahvaz fields.

[emphasis, and spittle, in the original]

I had so hoped that the purloined email and the bizarre characterization of my argument, and the attempt of this Western journalist who is clueless about reading Persian texts to correct my philology, was the mere result of too many whiskey sours taken too early in the morning. I see that instead it is mere asininity and lack of character. Thanks to Sullivan for settling the issue.

On Going Where We Look

One of the first things a motorcyclist learns is that "You go where you look."

Target fixation is the term used for the habit motorcyclists (and drivers) have of running into things they mean to avoid. They do this because we - for some reason - are wired to tend to steer toward whatever we are paying attention to.

So that’s interesting, you reply.

I want to extend this toward the larger debate we’re having here about Iran. And to put it into context, let me base the argument on something I know a bit about directly - personal combat.

One of the key issues in making fighting personal is that typically, it is far from clear that you’re really in a fight for a long time. Often the person who knows that you are - or decides first that you are - has a substantial advantage.

There’s a problem with this formulation, of course.

And that is that a very small proportion of interpersonal conflicts actually become fights. Let me give a concrete example.

read the rest! »

Iran to IAEA: "Nuts!"

NY Times today:

Iran has told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it will refuse to answer questions about a second, secret uranium-enrichment program, according to European and American diplomats. The existence of the program was disclosed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier this month.

The diplomats said Iran had also refused to answer questions about other elements of its nuclear program that international inspectors had focused on because they could indicate a program to produce nuclear weapons. The diplomats insisted on not being identified because of the delicacy of continuing negotiations between Iran and the West.

Underground Bunkers 101

This post at Subtopia: A Field Guide to Military Urbanism manages all at once to be an unintentionally self-parodying commentary on the modern Left, and an informative piece. They show pictures of Iran's infamous Natanz facility in 2002 and then 2004, and note:

"Despite advances in satellite imaging, infrared and sensor technology, and a flexing global panoptic muscle, detection methods have suffered accuracy due to the expansion of a subterranean urbanism that’s become increasingly more sophisticated at deflecting aerial surveillance. Whether burrowing into ancient mountain caves, or digging tunneled networks deeper than ever (or so we think), or whether these dank hallways merely skim the surfaces dipping under the border, the tunnelers have kept remarkably ingenuitive and entrepreneurial in their masterful escape routes and renegade economies that pulsate through them. Signs of desperation maybe but also that a real thriving form of opposition is in effect here. Perhaps these dark places are all united in a landscape solidarity against the "iminanent domains" of transnational corporatism. The article is much too long and dense to summarize here, so just read it, if you are interested in the sciences of bunker architecture, ground penetrating radar technology, seismic shockwaves, and mapping the earth's gravitational fields from orbit. Fascinating stuff, to be sure."

It is. Now, if you want to step into true Loony Left surrealism, I recommend the Subtopia articles "Vegas, Baby!" about the forthcoming 'Divine Strake' test; and "'The Long War' enters its capsule." OK, couldn't resist a quote from the latter:

"With all this renewed nuclear tension boiling up around the world, the discovery of this spat up little fossil is a silly archaeological trace of the eerie paranoia that governed the American psyche for decades while posturing with the Soviet Union, but also makes us wonder: has the Cold War really ended, or is it something that constantly lurks just below the surface, regurgitating itself up off the geopolitical backburner when it needs to, playing the earth for a hollow museum of nuclear urbanism inscrolled in synchronous economic timebelts perpetuated by run-on projections of post-future nuclear war?"

The only urbanism here is the big flashing neon sign that says "Hello, I've lost contact with reality; and I'm never, ever coming back."

Pear-Shaped Ali and the Bomb

Here's an interesting take by Amir Taheri on Iran, based on the folk take of 'Pear-Shaped Ali' (which is a better one for all concerned than 'Mushroom Cloud-Shaped Ali').

The issue here is not uranium enrichment but the finding of a way for the Islamic Republic to walk out of a high-risk confrontation with the United Nations without losing face.

On that score, Ahmadinejad should get high marks. But he may owe all that to the Tehrani folk tale we mentioned above. That tale is woven around its hero Ali Golabi (Pear-shaped Ali) who is a small chap with big ambitions.

read the rest! »

Pakistan's Nuclear Timeline

There's a lot of discussion about nuclear weapons timelines in Iran, and I thought it'd be interesting to lay out the most-comparible timeline to nuclear capability, that of Pakistan. This can hopefully serve as a factual anchor for our future discussions.

Obviously, Iran - assuming they got full cooperation from Pakistan's experts - could move faster. The interesting question is "how much faster?" given the technical issues involved in implementing both enrichment and weapons production.

I've based the timeline below on two sources: William Langweische's article on AQ Khan in the Atlantic, and the Nuclear Weapons Archive, a very useful site founded by Gary An, a student, and now operated by Carey Sublette.

read the rest! »

Facing Down Iran

"Must-read Mark Steyn" is the most overused phrase in the political blogosphere.

But this is a must-read Mark Steyn.

Not only does he remember the Iranian bombing of the Argentinian Jewish Community Center, he puts it in context. I mean, some of us have known about Iran for a long time.

RELATED: The Hamlet Party.
Also When self-defense is a crime.

Bush, Hersh & Iran

Kevin Drum takes me to task for diminishing the import of the leaked Iran plans.

But what's important isn't the existence of the contingency plans. Rather, it's the fairly obvious fact that the Bush administration is publicizing them as part of a very public PR campaign in favor of a strike against Iran. The problem is that even if this is a bluff, it's one that has a profound effect on both Iran and the American public. As James Fallows says:

By giving public warnings, the United States and Israel “create ‘excess demand’ for military action,” as our war-game leader Sam Gardiner recently put it, and constrain their own negotiating choices.

In other words, if the PR campaign is too successful, then Bush will have boxed himself in. Eventually he'll feel obligated to bomb Iran solely because he's now under pressure to make good on his threats and doesn't want to look like he's backing down. World Wars have started over less.

It's not like Bush doesn't have problems but blaming him for the actions of someone who's vehemently opposed to him seems just silly. And yes, I do think that that too much bluster (Hi, Trent! Hi, Tom!) is exactly the wrong approach to be taking right now. I think that it weakens us internally, stirs our opponents and sends an air of unseriousness. This is a case where we should be speaking very softly, and testing the heft of our biggest sticks.

How to Deal With Iran

How To Deal With Iran - What Milton Ezrati Saw (And Missed)
by Russell Mitchell of Boxing Alcibiades

In this Christian Science Monitor op-ed, money management executive Milton Ezrati comments on the Iranian oil bourse idea, a new, euro-based oil exchange, on Kish Island in the Persian Gulf which ultimately aims to dethrone the greenback from its position as the world's reigning reserve currency. He dismisses it as a complete fantasy for several good reasons, most of which can be summed up as "who wants to depend on Iranian law?"

The most interesting thing about Ezrati's article isn’t the futility of Iran's oil bourse idea, however; rather, it's the utterly missed implications of his own analysis re: Iran's oil weapon. An analysis that may suggest the way to bring the Iranian dictatorship¹ to its knees.

read the rest! »

A Man, A Plan, Iran

Just as a side note, it's interesting that the people who are having strokes over the claim that the Administration is developing a plan or series of plans for military action in Iran are the same people who had strokes over the lack of planning in the war in Iraq.

I tend not to get very exercised about this, since I'm sure that there are plans being updated every day for - among other things - the invasion of Canada. All those midlevel officers in the Pentagon have to do something every day, and having detailed contingency plans for just about everything is probably a pretty good thing for them to be doing.

The disclosure of these plans is a part of the dance in which the Administration tries to manage perceptions within Iran while the press tries to manage perceptions of the Administration within the United States.

Threshold

I am quite aware of Thomas Friedman's 'Flat Earth,' and agree that globalization has done far more to spread wealth than just about any other historical economic influence. I know that telecommunications and the Internet have compressed the world economically and politically. I understand the interdependent ties between global regions and the nations within them. Look at isolated countries like North Korea or Talibanian Afghanistan, and it is obvious that in our time, countries that 'go it alone' face massive economic privations, often accompanied with the horror of internal repression.

In spite of the view that the globalized world will deliver long-term freedom and prosperity, I have begun to wonder if openness will be an option as we cross history's harsh thresholds, hidden in the tall grass. History always reaps the unexpected; its scythe is strident.

read the rest! »

Don't Look for U.N. Help on Iran

Small Town Veteran notes that Britain is moving toward a more confrontational approach with Iran. Captain's Quarters notes that Russia and China are bought off by Iran and remain so - and thus, the UN avenue Britain is attempting to preserve is also bought and paid for.

"We have reached the point where the Western nations looking to defend themselves from Islamofascist threats need to band together instead of working through a dead process at Turtle Bay. The UN does not preserve peace; it preserves the status quo, and unfortunately that allows rogue nations like Iran the breathing room they need to make those developing threats a reality. We need to recognize that and act on it. The US and the UK are not required to commit suicide in the cause of upholding the credibility of international organizations that have already demonstrated themselves as hopelessly corrupt and demonstrably inert."

How I Learned to Stop Worrying about Mullahs and Embrace The Bomb

Why We Must Nuke Iran; or
How I Learned to Stop Worrying about Mullahs and Embrace The Bomb

American foreign policy is approaching a crisis more catastrophic than any since at least World War 2. According to some sources, the terrorist nation of Iran has already acquired an unknown number of nuclear weapons of at least the Hiroshima variety. Trent Telenko has written about the high likelihood of Iran being in possession of nuclear weapons, and the "certainty of nuclear war" should we attempt to divest them of these weapons via a bombing campaign as some have suggested. Ladies and Gentlemen, this evidence is impossible to ignore. Even if by some unlikely quirk our Intelligence Services prove incorrect about Iran’s current state of nuclear readiness, it is still only a matter of time before the Mullahs retain a full nuclear arsenal, perhaps rivaling our own. Perhaps soon.

As glorious as the halcyon days of the Cold War proved to be, with our shining bombers and prowling submarines on constant standby to shower our enemies with American ingenuity, those days are gone forever. A standoff with Iran will prove to be a messy affair of dirty bombs and irradiated oil wells, hardly worthy of our bravest warriors and finest minds. The Mullahs have shown themselves to be mad religious zealots eager to martyr themselves and as many of their flock as possible, as quickly as possible. We would do well to send them on their way.

read the rest! »

Holsinger: The United States Will Attack Iran

Tom Holsinger explains why he thinks his future scenario re: Iran (W. leads an invasion before they get nukes) is more likely than mine (no invasion, they get nukes, 10-100 million or more dead within 20 years). Or does he?

America's ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, recently made a statement on the ABC News Nightline television program which irrevocably commits the Bush administration to use any necessary means, up to and including invasion, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The Reuters story on this states:

"The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, on Wednesday compared the threat from Iran's nuclear programs to the September 11 terror attacks on the United States.

"Just like September 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that's the threat. I think that is the threat," Bolton told ABC News' Nightline program.

"I think it's just facing reality. It's not a happy reality, but it's reality and if you don't deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant."

read the rest! »

Terrorists have long memories

I posted about the 1977 Hanafi Muslim hostage-taking in Washington DC, in response to a post by John Leo, about this incident as a foreshadowing of the cartoon controversy. (I added some detail about their takeover of B'nai Brith Headquarters.)

The director, Moustapha Akkad, a Syrian-born Muslim, shot around the role of Muhammad, sometimes showing scenes from Muhammad's point of view, a technique familiar from Akkad's stalker-and-slasher movies.

Despite these precautions, many Muslims were irate, particularly because rumors that [Anthony] Quinn would appear as Muhammad proved unstoppable. [Quinn played Mohammed's uncle.] . . .

Later, a group of black American Muslims attacked three buildings in Washington, D.C., taking 149 hostages. One of their demands was that The Message must not be released. In a 39-hour siege, a reporter was killed and many hostages were stabbed, beaten, or shot.

read the rest! »

Hitchens' Iran Idea

Just passing this along as grist for the mill. I am guilty of having no constructive ideas for defusing the Iranian nuclear crisis. Hitchens' plan is flawed and risky -- which makes it like every other option that's out there.

Survey Says

So, picture if you will the landing of Air Force One at Imam Khomeini International Airport. The president emerges, reclaims the U.S. Embassy in return for an equivalent in Washington and the un-freezing of Iran's financial assets, and announces that sanctions have been a waste of time and have mainly hurt Iranian civilians. (He need not add that they have also given some clerics monopoly positions in various black markets; the populace already knows this.) A new era is possible, he goes on to say. America and the Shiite world have a common enemy in al-Qaida, just as they had in Slobodan Milosevic, the Taliban, and the Iraqi Baathists. America is home to a large and talented Iranian community. Let the exchange of trade and people and ideas begin! There might perhaps even be a ticklish-to-write paragraph, saying that America is not proud of everything it is has done in the past -- most notably Jimmy Carter's criminal decision to permit Saddam to invade Iran.

The aging mullahs might claim this as a capitulation, which would be hard to bear. But how right would they be? The pressure for a new constitution and genuine elections is already building. Within less than a decade, we might be negotiating with a whole new generation of Iranians. Iran would have less incentive to disrupt progress in Iraq (and we should not forget that it has been generally not unhelpful in Afghanistan). Eventually, Iran might have a domestic nuclear program (to which it is fully entitled and which would decrease its oil-dependency) and be ready to sign a nonproliferation agreement with enforceable and verifiable provisions. American technical help would be available for this, since it was we who (in a wonderful moment of Kissingerian "realism") helped them build the Bushehr reactor in the first place.

Just a thought.

Int'l Woman's Day In Iran

Here are the people I'd really, really like to avoid bombing:

read the rest! »

Iran ^2

Trent is positive that Iran has or will shortly have one or more working nuclear weapons, and that they will test them soon (within months) and then blackmail us with those tests.

I’ll skip over the notion that his position represents the absolute-worst case possibility, and that there are much higher-probability states for the situation, that no one who is likely to know is acting like this is true, and that the actors most likely to know – and act – the Israelis – haven’t acted.

So I don’t see a lot of evidence that supports his case.

read the rest! »