On December 4, news broke that an advanced American stealth drone, the RQ-170 Sentinel, had fallen into Iranian hands, a situation described by former Vice President Dick Cheney as “a significant intelligence loss.”
According to foreign minister Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran deliberately delayed the announcement of the drone’s capture to test US reaction. And for good reason. When forthcoming, the US response came in the form of an olive branch, offered by the outstretched hand of President Barack Obama: “We have asked for it [the drone] back. We’ll see how the Iranians respond,” Obama muttered.
True to form, Tehran rejected the laughable request, calling the drone’s incursion an “invasion” and a “hostile act.” Defense Minister Gen. Ahmad Vahidi asserted the United States should apologize for violating Iranian air space instead of asking for the return of the unmanned aircraft.
This exchange clearly shows the ongoing disconnect between Obama’s policy of “engagement” towards the Islamic Republic, and reality. To the Mullah’s, Iran is at war with US—and has been since 1979. It also encapsulates Iran’s ongoing defiance in the face of “international” pressure, the US included, to halt its illicit nuclear program.
In this respect, over the past two weeks Iran has: broadcast on state television a video of an alleged CIA spy detained for infiltrating Iran’s secret services; been caught attempting to smuggle out of Russia a radioactive isotope, sodium-22, which “could only have been obtained as the result of the work of a nuclear reactor;” has conducted a military drill simulating the closing of the Strait of Hormuz; announced it will build a new nuclear facility in the city of Shahreza; and confirmed plans to launch sensitive atomic activities deep inside a mountain at the Fordow facility near Qom.
Yet Obama wants his drone back. As today’s Briefing shows, Mr. Obama seems to have accepted as a fait accompli a nuclear-capable Iran wreaking havoc throughout the globe. Since taking office, the President’s policy has morphed from one of purported prevention, to appeasement, and now “containment.” The problem is that all signs indicate that a nuclear Iran cannot, and will not, be contained; thereby raising the spectre of a pre-emptive Israeli strike to solve what should be considered the world’s foremost crisis.
OBAMA AND IRAN
Editorial
Jerusalem Post, December 17, 2011
At a time in which at the very least Iran ought to be made to feel the stinging effects of international ostracism and sanctions, it was given a public relations boon by no less than the American president. The ayatollahs’ regime seized upon it with exultant relish and laughed gloatingly out loud. The message sent to the people of the Middle East in general, and especially to the discontented masses in Iran, isn’t heartening. America, and in its tow the Free World, was made to look incompetent. In this region preposterous images inflict decisive damage.
President Barack Obama couldn’t in all likelihood prevent whichever malfunction it was that brought a US stealth drone down over Iranian territory. That was a super-embarrassment in itself. Not only was America’s unmanned spy activity foiled and exposed to all and sundry, but cutting-edge technology fell into the unfriendliest of hands. Still, in theory, this could happen to anyone.
But what took place after that initial embarrassment could have been prevented. It shouldn’t have been beyond American capabilities to destroy the downed drone, and deny Iran an invaluable psychological victory and access to state-of-the-art intelligence gathering mechanisms. But the crisis-management failure didn’t end there. The leader of the world’s sole superpower inexplicably humbled himself before Tehran’s theocrats and asked that they please give him his drone back. If he couldn’t sound tough, and credibly so, he should have said nothing.…
How did Obama expect them to respond? It’s not as if the US and Iran are friends. It’s obvious that the drone didn’t accidentally violate Iranian airspace but that it was on a spying mission. This wouldn’t predispose the rogue regime in Tehran to acquiesce to Obama’s polite request. Moreover, the drone mission came against a tension-charged backdrop in which the US has no diplomatic relations with Iran and is tightening economic sanctions on Iran in a last ditch effort to derail its nuclear project. Given all that, why would Obama risk looking silly by openly appealing to Tehran to return his spy contraption? This isn’t Obama’s first egregious faux pas on Iran.
In 2009, following Iran’s rigged election, thousands took to the streets in defiance. As pro-democracy demonstrators were killed in Tehran, Obama advised that “it’s important to understand that, although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and [opposition presidential candidate Mirhossein] Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great advertised.” The subtext was that Obama took no sides precisely when taking sides mattered the most. “I take a wait-and-see approach.… It’s not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections,” he said. All his later efforts at course-correction were too little, too late.
The perception he created was unfortunate. Perceptions are sometimes the name of the game in this region. When Obama administration headliners, including Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, publicly caution Israel against a preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, another unfortunate perception is produced. Intentional or not, the impression is that Washington has tied Israel’s hands and that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has less to fear.
Whatever misgivings exist in Washington, they need to be discussed with Israel in private and not aired in a manner that engenders glee in Tehran. This is no time to build up the ayatollahs’ confidence. This is no time to count on their reasonableness or to give them breathing space. This is no time for the US president to publicly make requests he knows will be contemptuously rejected.
THE WRONG SIGNALS TO IRAN
Editorial
Washington Post, December 8, 2011
Iran has been showing signs of increasing nervousness about the possibility that its nuclear program will come under attack by Israel or the United States. From the West’s point of view, this alarm is good: The more Iran worries about a military attack, the more likely it is to scale back its nuclear activity. The only occasion in which Tehran froze its weaponization program came immediately after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, when it feared it might be the next American target. That’s why the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, regularly repeats that “all options are on the table.”
What doesn’t make sense is a public spelling out of reasons against military action—like that delivered by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta before a U.S.-Israeli conference in Washington. Mr. Panetta said that a strike would “at best” slow down Iran’s program for “maybe one, possibly two years”; that “some of those targets are very difficult to get at”; that a now-isolated regime would be able to “reestablish itself” in the region; that the United States would be the target of Iranian retaliation; and that the global economy would be damaged.
Some of Mr. Panetta’s assumptions are debatable: For example, would Arab states—many of which have been quietly hoping for a U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran—really rally behind a regime they regard as a deadly enemy? And if bombing destroyed thousands of Iranian centrifuges, which are manufactured from materials Tehran cannot easily acquire, would it really be so simple to rebuild? But even if every point were true, there is no reason for the defense secretary to spell out such views in public.…
The public disparaging of the force option is not the administration’s only waffling signal to Tehran. Though Mr. Obama [recently] boasted that his administration has orchestrated “the toughest sanctions that Iran has ever experienced,” he is resisting pressure from allies such as France and from Congress to sanction the Iranian central bank. Last week the Senate passed 100-0 an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would sanction foreign banks that conduct transactions with the Iranian central bank, with an option for a postponement if the White House determines that the effect on the oil market would be too severe. The administration opposed the measure and is trying to narrow its scope in a conference committee.…
Officials say they worry about the damage such sanctions could cause to the economy.… Iran, they argue, could end up benefiting if oil prices spike. While these are not unreasonable concerns, the administration’s stance resembles Mr. Panetta’s message. In effect, it is signaling that it is determined to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon—unless it means taking military or diplomatic risks, or paying an economic price.
OBAMA’S IRAN POLICY SHIFTS TO CONTAINMENT
Michael Makovsky & Blaise Misztal
Washington Post, December 9, 2011
As recent events underscore the growing Iranian nuclear threat, the Obama administration appears to be pivoting toward a policy of containment. The emphasis of its rhetoric has shifted from preventing an “unacceptable” nuclear Iran to “isolating” it. When coupled with recent weaker action against Iran, we fear it signals a tacit policy change.
A few days after his election, President Obama called a nuclear Iran “unacceptable.” In February 2009, he pledged “to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.” By the next year, after a first round of negotiations with Iran had failed and the United Nations and Congress passed tougher sanctions, that pledge had softened. “The United States,” Obama said in July 2010, is “determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”
The administration did not dwell publicly on Iran until the Oct. 11 announcement that it foiled an Iranian terrorist plot on U.S. soil—against the Saudi ambassador—and the International Atomic Energy Agency presented damning evidence of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. The president’s response, a Nov. 21 statement announcing new sanctions, marked another subtle, yet significant, rhetorical shift. It downgraded the Iranian threat from “unacceptable” to one of the several “highest national security priorities.” Obama concluded: “Iran has chosen the path of international isolation.… [T]he United States will continue to find ways…to isolate and increase the pressure upon the Iranian regime.” Yet isolation now appears a goal in its own right, uncoupled from the objective of preventing nuclear capabilities.
The same rhetoric was more explicit in a speech the next day by national security adviser Thomas Donilon. “Iran today,” he declared, “is fundamentally weaker, more isolated, more vulnerable and badly discredited than ever.” Left unsaid was that Iran’s nuclear program is more advanced, more capable and closer than ever to achieving nuclear weapons. Despite citing Obama’s July 2010 speech, Donilon’s overwhelming theme was isolation. He used some form of the word “isolate” 17 times, “prevent” only three and “unacceptable” not once.…
Moreover, the administration’s lack of support for a military option undermines its commitment to preventing a nuclear Iran and undercuts its ability to achieve broader international support for sanctions. Despite repeated assertions that they are keeping “all options on the table,” officials seem to be conditioning Americans to view the prospect of a military strike negatively. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and his predecessor, Robert Gates, have effectively ruled out U.S. military action by constantly highlighting its risks. Twice recently, Panetta emphasized a strike’s “unintended consequences.” He listed five categories of them in a Dec.2 speech in which he also referred, many times, to some form of “isolation.” This suggests the administration isn’t prepared to prevent a nuclear Iran at all costs. Nor has it made any credible preparations, such as military exercises and deployments, for a strike.
The administration’s alternative to prevention—isolation—implies containment. But a nuclear Iran could not be contained as the Soviet Union was. Containment requires credibility, a resource the United States will have drained if, after numerous warnings to the contrary, we permit Tehran to cross the nuclear threshold. And no matter how isolated, a nuclear Iran is likely to spark a destabilizing cascade of proliferation. Despite its own isolation, North Korea shares its nuclear technology. Iran might, too. Tehran’s enemies, led by Saudi Arabia, would seek safety behind their own nuclear deterrent.…
The Obama administration needs to regain its clarity and refocus its rhetoric and action toward preventing a nuclear Iran. It should do so, if necessary, by “all elements of American power.”
THE IRAN THREAT
Max Boot
LA Times, December 1, 2011
In retrospect, weakness in the face of aggression is almost impossible to understand—or forgive. Why did the West do so little while the Nazis gathered strength in the 1930s? While the Soviet Union enslaved half of Europe and fomented revolution in China in the late 1940s? And, again, while Al Qaeda gathered strength in the 1990s? Those questions will forever haunt the reputations of the responsible statesmen, from Neville Chamberlain to Bill Clinton.
The answer to the riddle—why did the West slumber?—becomes easier to grasp if we think about present-day relations with Iran. The Islamic Republic has been attacking the West, and in particular the United States, since the day of its birth. A central feature of the 1979 revolution, after all, was the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The resulting hostage crisis allowed Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to consolidate power and drove out more moderate leaders.…
Then, throughout the 1980s, Khomeini and his henchmen in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps worked to spread their brand of militant Islam. They established a beachhead in Lebanon, where Iranian operatives worked with Hezbollah proxies to bomb Western targets (including the U.S. Marine barracks, the French barracks, the U.S. Embassy and numerous Israeli targets) and to kidnap more than 100 Westerners. Iranian and Hezbollah operatives also are widely held responsible for bombing Jewish targets in Argentina in 1992 and 1994 and for the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia.… After the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force mounted an active campaign to kill American personnel there.… Iranians trained Shiite extremists (and probably Sunnis as well) inside and outside Iraq.
All the while Iran was covertly developing nuclear weapons. The Nov. 8 report from the International Atomic Energy Agency presents a devastating portrait of the advanced state of Iran’s nuclear program: “Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the [IAEA] Board of Governors and the [U.N.] Security Council,” the report notes, “Iran has not suspended its enrichment-related activities.” It is also working to weaponize nuclear materials and to develop long-range missiles. Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, said that Iran has enough material for four or five nuclear bombs; all that is required is a decision to proceed.
Faced with such provocations, the international community has reacted with scarcely believable passivity.… To deal with Iran’s menace, the West has relied in part on covert actions (such as—allegedly—the Stuxnet computer virus) but mainly on sanctions. Washington has been sanctioning Iran since 1979.… Carter, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, Obama all have imposed sanctions on the Iranian regime, from asset freezes to travel restrictions. To what effect?
This policy’s lack of success can be measured not only in the continuing progress of the Iranian nuclear program but also by Tehran’s willingness to carry out other outrageous acts, including the plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in Washington revealed in October and [last month’s] storming of the British Embassy. Clearly, Tehran is not worried about international repercussions, and why should it be? The West has hesitated to take the steps that could cripple the regime’s economic base, such as sanctioning Iran’s central bank and embargoing its export of petroleum. Yet, at this late date, even such tough actions might not stop Iran from going nuclear.
The only credible option for significantly delaying the Iranian nuclear program would be a bombing campaign. But who imagines that President Obama will…unleash a war against the ayatollahs? The use of force, despite the bluster from Washington about “all options” being “on the table,” is not a credible threat (except from Israel), and the mullahs know it.
In short, Western policymakers have implicitly made the same assumption today that their predecessors made in the 1930s, 1940s and 1990s: that an immediate war, even one fought on favorable terms, is to be feared more than a looming cataclysm that is likely to occur at some indefinite point in the not-too-distant future.…
After the failure to stop Hitler and Bin Laden, among others, Westerners were said to have suffered a “failure of imagination.” We are suffering that same failure today as we fail to face up to the growing threat from the Islamic Republic.
(Max Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.)
IRAN RESPONSIBLE FOR 1998 U.S. EMBASSY BOMBINGS
Marc A. Thiessen
Washington Post, December 8, 2011
It went virtually unnoticed, but last week a federal court found the government of Iran liable for the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Wait, you say, wasn’t al-Qaeda responsible for the embassy bombings?
Al-Qaeda carried out the attack, but the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the bombings would not have been possible without “direct assistance” from Tehran as well as Sudan. “The government of Iran,” Judge John D. Bates wrote in his 45-page decision, “aided, abetted and conspired with Hezbollah, Osama Bin Laden, and al Qaeda to launch large-scale bombing attacks against the United States by utilizing the sophisticated delivery mechanism of powerful suicide truck bombs.”
Iran’s assistance was not peripheral to the plot, Bates found. “Al Qaeda desired to replicate Hezbollah’s 1983 Beirut Marine barracks suicide bombing, and Bin Laden sought Iranian expertise to teach al Qaeda operatives about how to blow up buildings,” Bates wrote. “Prior to their meetings with Iranian officials and agents Bin Laden and al Qaeda did not possess the technical expertise required to carry out the embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.…”
These facts are worth some reflection in light of a report released this week by Tom Donnelly, Danielle Pletka and Maseh Zarif…on the tremendous difficulties of “Containing and Deterring a Nuclear Iran.” [see “On Topics” for the full report—Ed.] They warn that Iran could very well have a weaponized nuclear capability when the next president takes office in January 2013. Imagine what this means. If Iran helped al-Qaeda attack the United States without a nuclear umbrella to protect it from retaliation, what might the regime do once it possesses nuclear weapons?…
Would Iran share nuclear weapons with al-Qaeda? Iran was willing to help al-Qaeda blow up two American embassies using conventional explosives. With a nuclear arsenal to deter American retaliation, what is to stop it from helping al-Qaeda carry out a far-deadlier attack using a weapon of mass destruction? As the [above-mentioned]report notes, “It is likely that the Iranians value nuclear weapons not only for their deterrent purposes but also, if delivered by a suicide terrorist, for the intoxicating promise of devastating effect and potential deniability.…” Think about the audacity of Iran’s actions in facilitating al-Qaeda’s bombings of two U.S. embassies in 1998, and imagine how hard it will be to deter the regime from similar attacks once it has the bomb.
WILL JEWS BE SCAPEGOATS FOR IRAN ATTACK?
Mitchell Bard
Jerusalem Post, December 11, 2011
As next year’s presidential election approaches, US President Barack Obama’s…supporters have been desperately trying to make the case that he is Israel’s friend. Last week’s comments by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta have done much to undermine that case, however, and appeared to make Israel the scapegoat for any negative consequences that could arise from the Jewish state having the audacity to defend itself against the existential threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb.
Worse than the actual comments were the disturbing anti-Semitic undertones inherent in Panetta’s remarks. The secretary warned of the potential negative consequences to the world economy of a military strike against Iran, but he only raised the danger to the world economy before a discussion with [Israeli] Defense Minister Ehud Barak.… The timing of his remarks were clearly aimed at Israel.…
Panetta also suggested an attack on Iran would have “a serious impact on US forces in the region.” This comment appears to reflect the view of Arabists within the Obama administration that Israeli actions and US support for Israel endanger Americans.… The truth, however, is that US troops are targets of Islamic extremists and other anti-American elements in the Middle East because of who they are, what they represent and their presence in the region, not because of anything Israel says or does. Shouts of “Death to America” in Tehran, Iranian aid to insurgents in Iraq and plots against a Saudi diplomat in Washington have nothing to do with Israel.…
Jews have been blamed for the world’s ills, especially economic ones, for centuries. The suggestion that by defending itself from extermination the Jewish state is somehow responsible at the current time for leading the world toward nuclear Armageddon is reprehensible and odious.
Israel is the only country Iran has threatened to attack and destroy, and it has done so repeatedly. Jews have some experience with genocidal threats, as well as experience with relying on the good will of the international community to respond effectively to those threats. It is understandable if they are not willing to entrust their future survival to the United Nations, the Europeans, or the United States.
In contrast to 1981, when prime minister Menachem Begin decided Israel could not tolerate a nuclear Iraq, Israel has so far held its fire. Jerusalem has not taken action yet, hoping rather that the international community will take effective measures to stop the Iranian nuclear program. At some point, Israel’s leaders will have to decide if they can continue to wait.
Until that time, it pays to recall the initial reactions to Begin’s historic decision, and subsequent history. Israel’s destruction of Iraq’s nuclear reactor was condemned by the United States and the rest of the world, but a decade later, the US defense secretary thanked Israel for that military strike and said it likely saved American lives during the first Gulf War.
Panetta would do well to reflect on that history before he speaks again.
