Posted on 08/23/2006 10:16:29 PM PDT by Ooh-Ah
...mullahs' strategy was paying dividends as Russia and China took the bait and urged further negotiations. These countries have their oil or nuclear energy deals with Tehran, and they don't seem to worry all that much about Islamic radicals getting the bomb. Perhaps they figure that's America's problem, or Israel's, though how an Islamic regime with a nuclear arsenal helps Russian or Chinese interests is a mystery.
...
... "no good options" available to pressure Iran, but that's more excuse than analysis. Iran's mullahs are unpopular at home and their citizens will notice if they are declared a global pariah state. Sanctions on travel by Iran's government officials, diplomats and sports teams may be largely symbolic, but such symbolism will not be missed on the Persian street.
Iran is also vulnerable economically. Sanctions on banks that deal with Iran can limit the regime's access to global credit markets for trade and other financing. ... Iran also imports some 40% of its refined gasoline. A ban on selling gasoline to Iran would surely lead to gas lines and other shortages there, with possible domestic political repercussions. And it is domestic discontent that the mullahs rightly fear the most.
The worry ... oil card in retaliation, ...sending world oil prices perhaps to $100 a barrel. But the mullahs can't eat oil. Amid other economic sanctions, they would need their income from oil sales more than ever. ... if the world...won't allow them to go nuclear, ...
...
No one wants a military confrontation with Iran, but those who want to avoid one have an obligation to show the mullahs that continuing on their current path will lead to isolation, economic suffering and worse. A U.N. Security Council that passes resolutions it refuses to enforce is itself a threat to global security.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
I don't think the mullahs would tolerate that.
You really think the PRC, a secular state with atheist roots, has that much influence on Iran, an Islamic Republic?"
I do. Perhaps not in how to run Iran internally (which is & has been, in parts, reminiscent of the Chinese and Soviet tactics anyway), but certainly in reshaping the Mideast and diminishing, if not attempting to eradicate, the U.S. and Western influence.
Equally, the Chinese and the Russians will happily accommodate as long as they think that they can have IRI under their thumbs should IRI misbehave towards them. This isn't simply about mutual investments and business deals between China, Russia and IRI. It is also about forming alliances for a bigger agenda.
"I don't think the mullahs would tolerate that."
The mullahs, at any point, would not only tolerate anything that is expedient, but would also welcome it. Toleration of the Marxists/Communists who brought them to power in the first place in Iran is a good example.
The Alliance of Life vs. The Axis of Death
How mankind’s latest challenge is going to turn out we don't know yet, that it is going to be a long war is already clear. It reminds me of the Chinese curse "May you live in interesting times". Which of us thought it would be us living those interesting times. It was only recently that some bozo was declaring the end of history, yea right! And let’s get rid of the patent office as well.
What follows is an idea that I have been posting everywhere. I believe this is the campaign the Allies of Life should chose to fight next, in what many are now calling World War IV.
It is said that Captains should study Tactics, and Generals should study Logistics.
Most of the Terrorists are being paid to fight, if this pay, training, and supply was interdicted, many Terrorists would have to go find work. At the present time, Iran is the largest funding source in the world for Terrorists, contributing as much as $1 billion in money, arms, and training every year.
I believe the following would significantly improve our strategic position in the War on Terror.
We should destroy the Iranian oil industry. By Bombing all oil transportation facilities, pipelines, storage tanks, tanker trucks, rolling stock, refinery’s etc… we can cripple the funding of numerous terrorist organizations, Hezbollah, Hama’s, Sadr’s militia, Syria, as well as make it more difficult for Iran to buy missiles and such from North Korea, China, and Russia.
It would remove Iran’s threat that if we attack they will shut off the oil. Making the threat ridiculous and demonstrating that they are a single product state and without oil, and no other product that the world wants, they are nothing. Additionally, by declaring that we will destroy any reconstituting oil industry as long as the Mullacracy remains in charge, we can focus the Iranian’s blame for the situation, on the Theocracy and their support of Terrorism.
This will also bring home to all the other oil producing countries like Venezuela, Libya, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, etc… that they are very vulnerable to the same tactic, and they better start to cooperate, or else.
In addition, this will gain us time for the Iraqi’s to stand on their own, and free up troops we would need if we have to go into Iran, North Korea or somewhere else. (At the moment I don't think we could, or should put boots on the ground in Iran)
Sure the price of gas will rise, but this will also demonstrate to the world that the USA is not in Iraq for the Oil, and the onus can be shifted on to the Democrats for not allowing more domestic production.
“It’s not the control of the spice but the power to destroy the spice that is the real power. [From Dune]”
It has recently been said that the nuclear production facilities in Iran are so deep underground that we can’t reach them with conventional weapons. Perhaps so, but maybe we can starve those facilities of funds. Nuclear weapons are terribly expensive to build, and if Iran now needs all its money to repair vital life supporting infrastructure, it may have to slow or stop its attempt to build an atomic bomb.
Finally, Iran is a state sponsor of Terrorists, it must be punished, and it must be seen to be punished. Iran’s continued sponsorship of terror is a slap in America’s and President Bush’s face, and it must be answered.
The following was written in response to an objection I received about having to pay more for fuel if this strategy was followed.
I think you are overly concerned about the economic considerations, and not concerned enough about the need to prosecute the War on Terror to the utmost.
1. The US has a full Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 700 million Barrels, and we aren't the only nation with an SPR. What good is it if you never use it? The average price paid on that 700 million barrels was $27, so the nation would actually make a profit selling it now.
2. The only reason the US isn't energy independent now is because of political factors. We have 2 Trillion Barrels of oil trapped in oil shale (see www.oiltechinc.com). A technique now exists to turn any organic matter into fuel (see www.powerenergy.com). The US would and should be using much more nuclear power, (if it wasn't for the Ecofreaks we would be now). There are also many areas in the US that are now off limits to drilling. All it takes is the political will to develop all of these. Higher fuel prices will provide that political pressure.
3. Iran is using diplomatic processes, just like the Nazi's before them. So talking to them is a waste of our time, and just gives them time to develop nukes.
4. Iran subsidizes gas at $.10 a gallon, so by destroying the Iranian oil industry not only do we instantly remove 20% of their GDP. We put them all on foot, and in the dark.
5. The mullahs want to take their world back to the 7th century, we should assist them. By going medieval on Iran, we would serve notice on every Authoritarian regime whose only support is oil, that their days are numbered.
6. My recommended solution for American energy independence: a combination of tax breaks, loan guarantees (all energy development is capital intensive), and the government purchase of the patents held by Oil-Tech, and Power Energy, and making them open source.
The following further expands on the idea.
Iran exports 2.5 million barrels of oil a day, Iranian as well as the rest of the Persian Gulf oil producers, produce what is called heavy sour crude which typically sells for ~20% less than the benchmark sweet light crude quoted on the spot markets. So, with that understanding we can roughly calculate the gross income Iran’s economy generates from oil exports. At a price of $75 Barrel Iran will get 80% of that price for its low grade crude, or $60. $60 x $2.5 million barrels x 365 days = $54.75 billion. Now from the CIA world fact book we can see that Iran has a GNP of $564 billion. So by destroying Iran’s oil industry their GDP is cut by 10% just from the lost exports. But, the damage is much deeper than that, Iran subsidizes gasoline at $.10 a gallon and Iran consumes 1.425 million barrels of oil a day. With the oil industry destroyed the cars, trucks, trains, and power plants no longer run. That means no machinery, no electricity, and no modern economy. I can’t estimate what Iran’s GDP would decline to, but even the poorest nation on earth still has running cars and electricity. I think much of the population would either revolt or start walking for the boarders. They couldn’t import oil because we would destroy tankers, pipelines, and rolling stock. They couldn’t attack us in Iraq either, because with out gas they can’t logistically supply an attacking army. We on the other hand could perform a ground attack anywhere and they would be incapable of maneuvering in response. Not that I think we should do a ground attack, I don’t, but we would be well positioned if we needed to (airborne assaults on nuclear facilities).
"Will the U.S. be willing to take unilateral action of this magnitude? At this stage, I don’t believe that the EU will be supporting it. Nor will China or Russia."
You are right of course; the US will have to do this alone. We are the only ones with the Air Forces necessary to accomplish it. All it will take is the President ordering it done, the bombing will take less than 30 days and cost far less than the $50 billion it is going to cost the Iranians in direct loss of export dollars.
"The U.S. would need to ensure that there are contingency plans, prior to any action, in terms of the impact that such action would have on the price of oil and public opinion in the U.S., etc. Also, how long would it take to devise and implement such contingency plans?"
The US has a strategic petroleum reserve that is full (700 million barrels) and while we are using that we can do a crash program of developing oil shale, alcohol, and domestic drilling off shore and in Alaska where politics has prevented development before. As far as public opinion goes, much of Bush's loss of political support is due to his failure to prosecute the War on Terror to the utmost. Americans believe that if you have to go to war you must fight with everything you've got and get it over as soon as possible. Bush has not been doing this, he knows Iran, and Syria are both supporting terrorists and has done nothing. So if Bush just went to war with Iran and Syria his support will most likely rebound back up above 50%.
"I think the U.S. is and will be very capable of destroying major oil fields, pipelines, tankers, etc. as required. But I also think the U.S. will need to have a next step(s) after air strikes. These next steps include, for example, ensuring damage control within Iran, law and order issues within Iran, minimizing potential terrorist attacks that these air strikes will potentially lead to, and ensuring that there will be an interim government to take over from the mullahs immediately after they are toppled and so on… IMO, these must be planned out in detail before any military action. Bearing in mind that what happens in Iran will most definitely have a significant impact on the region and the world."
I believe that the mullacracy will take awhile to collapse. So at the same time America starts the war it announces that a New Iranian Army will be trained, Paid, and equipped in Iraq to take over Iran as soon as it is ready and Iranians are encouraged to apply. If we did this US Army forces may never be needed in Iran, or if they are just for a few Thunder Runs to topple the Mullahs, with the New Iranian Army mopping up and taking over. Done this way we could write the Iranian constitution and have the new army swear to it before they are allowed to join, this would make starting a new government much quicker.
"Lastly, will the current U.S. Administration be willing to embark on such major initiative as per your proposal before November or even whilst the current administration is in office?"
This I don't know, but I think it is at least possible. Bush has stepped so far away from the Bush Doctrine, by that I mean he still talks the talk, but no longer walks the walk. Some have said that he is just giving the EU and Iran enough rope to hang themselves, if so Iran's announcement that economic incentives wouldn't stop them from enriching Uranium may have been the sound of the trap door dropping. We will see in the days ahead.
Thanks for the post and the details. All the points you mention are very valid.
No, I have never spent any time in a communist country. My opinion is based on some readings, analysis and comparisons. But, I’m more familiar with and have more first hand knowledge of Iran.
“For a while I was certain that Iran theocracy will follow USSR, to its grave. However it didn't happen I was so shocked that it made me think. Finally I concluded that there are extremely important differences between Eastern Europe and Iran.”
It took 75 years for the USSR to fall, IRI has been in power for some 28 years and I don’t think it will stay in power as long as USSR did. And, yes, there are some key differences between Eastern Europe and Iran. In addition to the points you mentioned, the main ones are that of culture and history. Also, Islamism looks to manipulate and exploit the believers’ “faith”. That is, partly, why I think it will be much harder to defeat or even neutralize than communism. By Islamism I mean the political doctrine of Islam not those Muslims who choose to privately practice their faith. Of course, Islamism is not unique to Iran either.
After Khomeini and the mullahs hijacked the Iranian Revolution, they did start funding global terrorism around the world, e.g., Hezbollah. The eight year war with Iraq consumed large amounts of resources, but they still funded global terrorism. Again, they set the priorities and use their considerable resources to pursue them.
2] No offense, but you can't compare Iran to Stalinist state. Stalin created a state completely cut off the rest of the world. You couldn't even leave your village without special permission... I'm not a particular fan of the Mullahs, but their state is a Disneyland by comparison.
It is all relative. The Mullahs have implemented controls on the Internet, smashed satellite dishs, and jail members of the press who stray from the accepted party line. Women are stoned to death for adultry. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices [Iran] - 2005
Soviet Union wasn't a developed country by any means, but it certainly wasn't a third world country. It was a strange mixture of both. It wasn't able to develop technology to feed its own people, but at the same time was able to send a man to the space. People working for military complex were given extraordinary privileges so up to a certain point they were churning out pretty good stuff. I don't believe that any comparison between USSR and Iran is valid.
I visited the Soviet Union a number of times. The standard joke in the USG was that the Soviet Union was the most developed under developed country in the world or the most under developed of the developed countries in the world. My comparison between Iran and the Soviet Union was meant to show how despotic countries can "afford" to devote huge amounts of scarce resources to specific areas. You were arguing that Iran could not "afford" to be a nuclear power, funder of global terrorism, etc.
Russia has still not developed the democratic institutions to be considered a democracy. Some believe that the form of government is superfluous. Russia remains Russia from the days of the Tsar to Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin to Gorbachev to Putin.
A distinction without a difference. We can agrue about whether Stalin or Hitler or Mao or Saddam or the Mullahs represent the worst of mankind, but the point is that the Mullahs oversee a corrupt repressive regime that could acquire nuclear weapons and that would have an impact upon the region and the world.
USSR in 50's was a very different country than in 80's. When Stalin ruled and during early Brezniev days, foreigners were allowed in only under exceptional circumstances. [My grandmother had to wait more than a week to obtain permission to attend her mother funeral, as a result she didn't make it]. So I would be very surprised if you were able visit USSR during Stalin era.
I lived two years in Poland during the days of Solidarnosc and martial law. I visited the Soviet Union the first time in 1976 when I lived in Helsinki. The last time was in 1996. I have been there about a dozen times, i.e, Moscow and Leningrad [now St. Petersburg].
So far I know the is no restriction on movement in Iran. Satellite dished may be destroyed, but their owners don't go to a labor camp in Siberia [in stalinist time a one-way ticket]
You obviously did not read the link I provided you to the State Department's 2005 Human Rights report on Iran. Here is the section on freedom of movement:
d. Freedom of Movement Within the Country, Foreign Travel, Emigration, and Repatriation
The government placed some restrictions on these rights. Citizens may travel within the country and change their place of residence without obtaining official permission. The government required exit permits for foreign travel for draft-age men and citizens who were politically suspect. Some citizens, particularly those whose skills were in short supply and who were educated at government expense, must post bonds to obtain exit permits. The government restricted the movement of certain religious minorities and several religious leaders (see sections 1.d. and 2.c.), as well as some scientists in sensitive fields.
On January 25, according to domestic media, the revolutionary court announced that former deputy minister for Islamic culture and guidance, Issa Saharkhiz, was banned from foreign travel. Saharkhiz headed a press freedom association and was accused of giving interviews to foreign media, spreading propaganda against the country, waging psychological warfare, exploiting his position, misusing government property, and earning money illegally. According to domestic media on April 6, government authorities prevented Journalists' Guild head, Rajabali Mazrui, from leaving the country for a conference in Denmark; no reason was given (see sections 1.e. and 2.a.). At year's end the president of the Association in Defense of Prisoners' Rights, Emaddedin Baqi, was prevented from going to France to accept a human rights prize.
Citizens returning from abroad sometimes were subjected to searches and extensive questioning by government authorities for evidence of antigovernment activities abroad. Recorded and printed material, personal correspondence, and photographs were subject to confiscation.
Women must obtain the permission of their husband, father, or another male relative to obtain a passport. Married women must receive written permission from their husbands before leaving the country.
The government did not use forced external exile, and no information was available regarding whether the law prohibits such exile; however, the government used internal exile as a punishment.
The government offered amnesty to rank-and-file members outside the country of the Iranian terrorist group, Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK), and the ICRC assisted voluntary repatriation from Iraq. Approximately 300 MEK members have voluntarily repatriated.
I still claim that Stalin and Mullahs are not in the same league, as a result Iranian theocracy is not able to squeeze as much from their people as Stalin did.
Again, that is a distinction without a difference. That is not the focal point of our discussion, i.e., debating who is worse. I don't think the Iranian people care about such distinctions.
Iran on the other hand, if not for its oil revenue would be dirt poor like for example Jordan.
And if pigs had wings, they could fly. Iran does have major revenue from oil.
By the way even if you stay by you Soviet- Iran comparison. in its hey day USSR was able to finance one guerrilla war [there they were described as 'help for our brother-countries', in Russian it sounds equally stupid] at a time. Iran is fighting at least on two fronts.
I have no idea what you are referring to, but they supplied arms, weapons and advisors to the North Vietnamese while supporting Cuba and other communist movements and governments throughout the world. They were never just fighting one "front" at a time. The Soviet Union was a far bigger threat to the US than Iran is now. The real danger is asymetrical warfare and the use of non-state actor terrorist surrogates to employ WMD. Retaliation and deterrence then become much more difficult.
There's a difference between a caliphate and the Ottoman Empire.
I'm not sure exactly what the point of the Qatar-Iran issue was other than the fact that Iranians are proud of their Persian identity.
"Iran's nuclear strategy is to divide and conquer the U.N."
'Conquer' is the key word.
Different circumstances, different scope, different countries. I still don't know specifically what you are referring to in terms of financing what guerrilla wars. The Soviet Union was trying to match the US in terms of weapons systems and armaments in addition to funding proxies in the Cold War. Iran does not any such pretensions anymore than North Korea does.
2. I don't know why do you bring Poland into this? If you wanted to impressed me you are extremely unlucky because I was born in Poland, even worse I spent 80's there I even participated in some strikes. It wasn't heroic at all.
I figured you were born in Eastern Europe. Sorry, but I spent two years in Warsaw, 1981-83, and found the struggle very heroic. The Pope and Reagan were able to support a movement that would eventually lead to the fall of the Berlin Wall. After Poland, I lived four years in West Berlin and visited East Berlin frequently. I am indeed puzzled by your perspective. Were you a member of the Communist Party?
3. Stalin passed away in 1953. So obviously I don't remember those times, but my parents and grandparents do. You visited USSR after his death. It was different country by then.
Not that much different for those who lived there. Ask people like Sharansky about life in the Soviet Union in the post-Stalinist era. Read his The Case for Democracy
4. I know Iran a bit. I would compare it rather to Yugoslavia in 70's than to USSR at any time. Iranian are pretty well connected with the world. They move freely around their country. They are relatively well educated, and can study the subject of their choice. No sane person would choose to live in Stalinist Russia over Iran. So I believe the is a ground for comparison.
How do you "know Iran a bit?" I would rather not live in either place. Of course, a lot depends on who you are in terms of where you live. If you among the controlling elite, it really doesn't matter that much.
I hope that the crazy Mullahs will go away peacefully. Because Iran is a beautiful country with enormous tourist potential. And with urban Muslim population craving to adopt modern life style.
If you know just a little bit about Iranian history, you must know that the mullahs will not go away peacefully. They have been part of the Iran's ruling elite for a thousand years. In Iran they are referred to as the "Shah" and Shaykh": the king and the cleric. The Shah's father, Reza Shah, tried to remove the mullahs from power in the 1920's, including taking away their lands and other institutions of power. After his exile in 1941, his son initially restored the mullahs to the trappings of power, but then the White Revolution of the 1960s led again to reforms that stripped the mullahs of their lands and power. Khomeini's return in 1979 and the hijacking of the Iranian revolution just is another chapter in the story.
Iran changed overnight. I was there during the Shah's fall from power and Khomeini's takeover. I left on March 31, 1979. Iran went, virtually overnight, from a country where you could buy Playboy on the newsstands and the Iranian parliament had more women in it than the US Congress did to a fundamentalist Islamic country that forced women to wear chadors and the advent of sexual apartheid.
Iran will have to divide the world, divide it again, divide it again, and divide it again, and then fight death grudge matches with each piece and win every time. Odds: 10 brazillion to one.
To be able to divide and conquer the u.n. is not saying nothing.
That is like the two young boys that were arguing:
First boy:"My daddy can beat your daddy!"
Second boy: "Big deal! So can my mother!"
You make my point. The Soviets were engaged in more than one front at a time and in more than one guerrilla war at a time. They supplied arms, money, and advisors.
The quest for nuclear weapon and import of weapons form China doesn't qualify as upgrading? USSR has never been a match for US in terms of sophisticated weaponry. USSR was good at producing good quality arms [not cutting edge technology] and selling it. It was quite profitable business and still is. Iran doesn't make any money in this business sector. It's simply a buyer. It's very expensive
Iran is not trying to match or surpass the US in ICBMs, nuclear submarines, bombers, aircraft carriers, tanks, etc. The Soviets tried to construct a modern, superior military to challenge the US across a broad spectrum of weaponry.
There is nothing heroic about a real struggle. It looks good on the TV. Real struggle is quite prosaic matter. You simply are doing things you have to do or are expected to do. I was there for real. You was looking for experience, so you saw it.
I was not there for the experience. I worked for the USG at our embassy in Warsaw. I witnessed firsthand some of the struggle including the police beating demonstrators who march behind the Popemobile in front of the US Embassy changing Reagan's name and the Pope. Just because something is prosaic doesn't mean that it is not heroic. It took courage to stand up in the face of the Communists.
Come on! You are saying that I should ask Sharansky what I have seen. Sharansky sells books and opinions to the western public. He is trying to prove his point, he has agenda.
You didn't live in the Soviet Union, which is why I mentioned Sharansky in response to your ridiculous point that life in the Soviet Union got much better after the death of Stalin. They still had gulags. What is wrong with Sharansky's agenda?
There are places where live is better for an average person. And there are places where an average person has worse quality of life. It as simple as that. I have seen places much worse to live than Iran. Knowing a place a bit means seeing few things and having few friends.
I lived in Iran for two years, so I have a different perspective than you do. Based on your "bit," I have a lot more than that.
Knowing a place a bit means seeing few things and having few friends. I suppose that after living in Poland for 2 years you know that place a bit. Although knowing what was going on in Poland then and knowing the Poles' attitude towards people from the West at that point of time, I have a strong suspicion that you simply paid few bucks to some people [at that time the currency exchange rate was ludicrous, a physician could buy only 2-4 dollars with his month salary - you should remember that], and they felt obliged to show you all the excitement you wished to see. No offense, but it's a rule of thumb if I go to a poor country, I always take into account that the natives have the tendency to look at me as a retarded source of a quick buck. Sorry, the same applies to you.
I did not take advantage of the Poles and tried to help them in that sorry country where everything from bread to soap was rationed. We worked out a deal in the Embassy so our polish employees could use zlotys to purchase goods from Denmark four times a year. We converted the money to dollars using our embassy commissary and then placed an embassy order from Denmark bringing the items in under diplomatic seal. We even brought in Danish hams because the Polish Government was exporting all that Poland was producing. We offloaded the truck in the Embassy compound and the employees distributed the food and goods. My wife stopped shopping on the local market when she stood in line and got the last loaf of bread. We brought in our food from Berlin.
I might also mention that I volunteered for various projects like providing and serving food to Polish charities like orphanages. We donated clothing, money, etc.
I returned to Poland in 1999 and saw how the country had changed so much for the better. It was startling to see what had happened since the wall came down. I even got down to Krakow, which was now covered with tourists.
Good night
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.