More on the Setting of History

Forgot to mention North Korea

Even under its most virulent anti-Communist leaders, South Korea has responded to past attacks, including the 1987 downing of a South Korean airliner, with palpable anger but little action. In at least one of those cases — the bombing that killed the cabinet members — a revenge attack was planned but never carried out. In others, under a liberal government, leaders reacted by trying harder to nudge the North back to the negotiating table on its nuclear program.

Those relatively mild responses were before the North effectively changed the calculus of retribution by forging ahead with a nuclear program, making what intelligence experts say is fuel for at least eight nuclear weapons, or possibly the bombs themselves.

Iranian Nuke Egghead Defects

Awesome.

An award-winning Iranian nuclear scientist, who disappeared last year under mysterious circumstances, has defected to the CIA and been resettled in the United States, according to people briefed on the operation by intelligence officials.

The officials were said to have termed the defection of the scientist, Shahram Amiri, "an intelligence coup" in the continuing CIA operation to spy on and undermine Iran's nuclear program.

A spokesperson for the CIA declined to comment. In its declassified annual report to Congress, the CIA said, "Iran is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons though we do not know whether Tehran eventually will decide to produce nuclear weapons."

Dealing with Iran, Part 2: Paths to Resolution

In part 1, I spelled out the situation with Iran and the positions the major players are in. This final part of Dealing with Iran will detail several potential outcomes of this crisis. They are in no particular order.

Iran Gets Nukes – This is one of the most likely outcome due to the weak action by the Obama administration and the international community. With Russian and Chinese backing, along with suspected North Korean technological advice, Iran will be able to create its first nuclear weapon before this new decade is out, most likely by 2015. Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons will be one of the most drastic geopolitical changes in the Near and Middle East since the Iranian Revolution 30 years ago. No longer just a regional superpower, Iran will be able to start dictating terms and spread its influence farther with a deserved credibility of a world power. Israel would be under a new, constant threat of attack by Iran's anti-Semitic leadership, probably driving it to push the US and Europe for extending its missile shield into the Middle East. If European leadership doesn't chance, it will most likely attempt to increase its standing with the new player with trade deals and other political gifts. The United States would try to increase the sanctions on Iran, at minimum. If hawks have the ear of the White House, a blockade or some type of physical show of power may be considered. But with Iran's oil industry, its ability to strike at almost any Western target in the Middle East and its increased conventional military, the world will probably have to learn to live with a new, radical and imperial-driven nuclear power.

Israeli Strike – It is my opinion that this is the most likely of outcomes if the current path is kept. Israel had shown over its history that its willing to do whatever it takes to defend itself from threats physical and potential. It came out around President Obama's inauguration that President Bush had repeatedly denied the Israelis any material or moral support for a strike on Iran. There are stories from as far back as 2005 that the Israeli Air Force is practicing flying the 1200 miles it would take to strike the main Iranian nuclear sites. It's almost guaranteed that the Israelis are ready to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites into oblivion on the first sign of a successful completion of a nuclear warhead. The aftermath of a strike are uncertain, but it can be reasonably guessed that Iran will, at minimum, order Hezbullah and Hamas to strike at Israeli targets en mass. It's less likely that Syria, Iran's military and political ally, will get involved, but it does not mean that it won't. The weaker the retaliatory position of the United States at the time of an Israel strike, the more likely Iran will take the opportunity to cripple Israel as much as it can. The success of any Israeli strike will be based on its human intelligence within Iran, which I believe, based on Israel's much more ruthless intelligence service, to be much better than that of the CIA's.

Iran Backs Down – On a scale of 1 to 10, from most likely to least likely, I'd give this resolution a 3.5. While it's not impossible for the Iranian leadership to recognize that their pursuit of nuclear arms is harming their ability to interact with the rest of the political world, its not in the best interest of the radical Islamist and the Iranian military to give up on the prestige of having nuclear weapons. Iranian designs for the Middle East are based on Iran's ability to escape any catastrophic retaliation for their actions. For example, the Iranians have backed numerous terror groups and native Iraqi militias to harass and kill American soldiers in Iraq. The military has present tons of evidence to prove this, but even with the proof, Iranian assets were barely touched. There were sanctions, diplomatic punishments and the loss of some influence in Iraq, but overall, Iran has gotten much stronger and bolder in their moves. Unless there is a major change in Iranian leadership, like the purging of the Revolutionary Guard's interference in civilian matters, the Iranians will not back down from their goal of attaining nuclear arms.

Israel-American Strikes – While the Israeli strike is the most certain of all actions, America joining in on the strikes is not as likely. Depending on the political situation, America may abstain from participating military, but its almost certain (unless the President is a extreme leftist or a isolationist libertarian) that the US would provide some kind of logistical support. The ability of American participation in the strikes will be based on Israel's trust of the American government as well as the position of American forces. If the US has come to terms with Iranian nuclear ambitions, it will most likely have moved forces out of the immediate area (save support troops in Iraq) and be less able to participate without having to use long-distance bombing. If the US has kept with its current policy of isolation and military preparedness at the time of an Israeli strike, it will have at least once carrier in the area and be able to coordinate. Like most modern American military choices, it will come down to the resolve of the president and the political situation at home.

American Invasion – The least likely of all outcomes. America is currently in no position to mount an invasion of Iran. The American public is tired of occupations and would quickly resent an occupation of Iran, even if it is based on years and years of evidence of Iranian nuclear wrongdoing. Iran is twice the size of Iraq with more difficult terrain and a much larger and stronger army. Even with the backing of its Iraqi invasion allies (including all 49 members of the Coalition of the Willing), the ability of American troops to successfully occupy Iran is pretty low. America does not have enough troops, the political backing nor the reinforcement ability to hold Iran longer than a year or more without having significant problems with its allies. Such a short time span would not lead to a successful nation-building mission unless a miracle shadow government is already planned by the Iranian dissents, waiting for the US to topple the mullahs.

Green Revolution – While there is much hope for revolution in Iran by the democratic dissents of the Green Revolution movement, a lack of true international support has left them with little ability to take hold of any Iranian institutions without being beaten back and executed. This outcome is above the likeliness of an American invasion, but well below Iran backing off its nuclear ambitions. There simply isn't enough political momentum at the moment for a successful overthrow of the theocracy or a chance for reformists to take power, although that is more likely than a political overthrow. In fact, the more likely internal political scenario would be a total transition from the semi-democratic structure of the Islamic republic to a straight out military dictatorship run and enforced by the Revolutionary Guard and blessed by hardline mullahs.

Total Regional War – Around a 4.5 to a 5 on the likely scale, this worst-case scenario comes in the aftermath of an Israeli strike. If American influence and power is waning to the point of out-and-out weakness, Iran will take the opportunity to strike hard at its mortal enemy with all it has. Its Syrian ally, along with its connected terror groups in Lebanon and Palestine, would expand its retaliation to cripple Israel's ability to project its power in the region. Air and ground-to-ground missile strikes, terror attacks and a possible invasion attempt would sent a strong message to other Western powers as to the willingness of Iran to take on its enemies. Like other scenarios involving America, the political atmosphere will be a major factor in dictating its actions. Unlike the invasion scenario, America is better equipped to fight a defensive war than an offense one. Forces in the Mediterranean area could strike fast and hard at Syrian and Hezbullah targets while Iraqi and American forces would be able to resist any Syrian attempt to invade. While Iran could try to invade Iraq, that would put its position as big brother to the Shia in jeopardy as not every Shia is keen on seeing Iranian overlords rule its new, hard fought liberal democracy. The possibility of American air strikes and naval strikes on Iranian forces both on the sea and in Iranian territory would depend on the strength and military advantage of the Iranians and the actions of the Iranain proxies near Israel. The war would be devastating to Israel with military losses reaching at least 1000 if Syria attempts an invasion. Civilian losses would be almost as large, if not larger, due to the choice of Iranian proxies to target civilian areas. If Iran-Syria achieve an upper hand and America is unable or unwilling to bring a large amount of force to its defense, Israel may be forced to unleash its hidden nuclear arsenal and the world would witness its first nuclear attack since Nagasaki. We can only hope that this scenario, no matter how likely it may be, never comes to pass because the use of nuclear weapons on Arabs and Muslims, no matter how legitimate the use, would put back the ability for peace between Western civilian and Muslim-led nations back to the starting point.

Dealing with Iran, Part 1: The Persian Pickle

America's relationship with Iran hasn't been a good one for the past half-century. The Cold War situation and Mossadeq's insistence of aligning himself with the Soviets led to his overthrow. The return of the Shah wasn't a popular request and Shah's rule wasn't exactly perfect (torture, secret police, oppression; that kind of thing). Then came the Shah's overthrow by a coalition of leftists, Islamists, democratic reformers and other dissidents of the monarchy. That wouldn't have been a bad thing except the alliance of revolutionaries rallied behind Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini, one of the top leaders of Islamic revival at the time. He was famous for his opposition to the Shah, but after coming to power he betrayed the other factions and established an theocracy in which clerics and himself had the final say on almost everything in the nation. He rallied the country under the slogan of “DEATH TO AMERICA!” and “DEATH TO THE GREAT SATAN!” Needless to say, they weren't exactly our friends after that.

Since 1979, Iran has expanded its role in the Middle East and Near Asia. Aside from the Iran-Iraq War, Iran has created or co-opted several terror groups including Hezbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. It has a vast network of intelligence operatives across Europe and is currently making headway in South America through Venezuela. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been killed by Iranian-backed or Iranian-committed terrorist attacks. This does not include the tens of thousands that have been killed by Iranian-backed militias and terrorists in Iraq since 2003.

Iranian expansionism has been mostly covert for the last 30 plus years, but with the Global War on Terror expanding past simply defeating Al-Qeada to the rooting out of WMD programs by rouge states, the Iranians were put into a bind when their nuclear program was flushed out into the open by dissidents in 2002. The IAEA demanded that they be allowed to inspect the program. After negotiations, the IAEA was allowed to inspect Iran's nuclear sites in early 2003. The IAEA determined that Iran had not lived up to its agreements concerning nuclear material and that there had been a pattern of deception. Since then, Iran has had many offers thrown its way so it could have a peaceful nuclear power infrastructure, but the Iranians have insisted that any deal must allow them to enrich uranium. Enriching uranium is essential to both nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

Despite calls to allow the international community vindicate Iranian claims of a peaceful program, it continues to both deceive the West as well as antagonize it, creating a situation where all the players are put into places they do not want to be, save for Russia. Russia has the singular position of coming out on top in almost any realistic scenario. I'll summarize these positions:

Iran - The country is destabilizing due to the recent fraudulent re-election of President Ahmadinejad. Since the election last summer, millions have protested and thousands have been killed on the streets or executed by the regime. A vast internet-based campaign to free Iran from the mullahs has taken root and the campaign is supported by millions of people across the world. Iranian dissidents who used to be cowed by the state's security forces have upped the ante by confronting them and, in some cases, killing them. While the “Green Revolution” has not panned out as hoped, it has made its mark on the Iranian political structure, creating an air of uncertainty around the ruling Iranian elite. This makes Iranian brinkmanship with the West much more precarious if it turns on them. On the bright side for Iran, if it can get nuclear weapons, it will have completed its goal and would cement its rule over the Near East and Middle East. If a conflict were to happen, it benefits from a rugged terrain, vast territory and a military that has been modernizing for a while. Also, its ability to reach American and Israeli targets with its ballistic missiles and its terrorist network gives it ample room to maneuver if foreign troops start landing on its shores.

United States – Debts, deficits and nearly ten years of continuous low-level war against Al-Qeada, the Taliban and Iraqi sectarians have made the American people tired of war. While its no guarantee that Americans won't initially support a strike or invasion of Iran because of the nuclear threat, the aftermath of any attack will involve hardships the American public would not tolerate. The cost of another war domestically, let alone geo-politically, is currently too much for the US to burden itself with. Its options for dealing with Iran are very narrow, which is never a good position to be in.

Russia – Russia has the best position out of any of the countries involved. If Iran backs down and accepts internationally enriched uranium for its nuclear power program, Russia would be the country most likely to be building those plants and supplying the Iranians with the technology to maintain them. If a conflict erupts between Iran and any of the Western powers, Russia can easily bring Europe to its knees with gas and oil embargoes, which puts pressure on the US and Israel (the most likely combatants with Iran) to end the conflict quickly without regard to the goals of the conflict being met. After any conflict, Russia would have ability to quickly help Iran rebuild.

Western Europe – Over the decades, Western Europe has put itself into a position of energy servitude to Russia. Most of Europe's gas and oil needs comes from its big neighbor and by that, its negotiation position with Russia's ally Iran can only do so much. Already, Italy has been caught dealing with Iran in the face of sanctions and European unity. Russia has already shown it can force the Europeans to their knees with gas shortages. Any conflict with Iran, even if the Europeans don't participate, will end up harming them greatly (gas price rises, forced gas shortages) unless they do the unthinkable and side with Russia/Iran in the conflict.

Israel – Israel is in the best position if Iran backs down, but worst position out of all other nations if conflict erupts. If Iran ends its arms program, Israel's goal of security would be met and it would not have to risk striking Iran and inciting war. But if Iran doesn't back down, then it is near certain that Israel will strike any and all Iranian nuclear facilities and maybe even attempt a decapitation strike on the Iranian civilian, religious and military leadership. Israel has no less than three Iranian allies on and within its borders: Hamas, Hezbullah and Syria. There is no doubt that Israel would suffer heavy, if not enormous, losses during a war with Iran and its allies, but the Israeli military is one of the best armed and best trained in the region and while it for sure it would suffer greatly, there is a high chance it could come out on top. The aftermath for Israel of any conflict would be moderate unrest within the country due to the diversity of Israeli politics as well as the ethnic tensions created by any war Israel has with its Islamic/Islamist neighbors. Also, even if Israel successfully attacks Iran without any overt military retaliation by Syria (something that is very unlikely), it will absolutely face a ramped up terrorist assault by Hamas and Hezbullah, and maybe even the more radical factions within the Fatah movement.

As you can see, this situation is very much skewed against war if any of the nations save Russia wish to come out on top. There are many alternatives to war which should be considered, and which I will expand upon in part 2, but it should be very clear that while Iran's nuclear arms program is very dangerous to world stability, its also very dangerous to attempt to stop it by force. There is very little the West can do right now without creating a worst situation, but that does not mean they should stop trying to prevent an expansionist and radical government from acquiring one of the most horrific weapons on the planet.

The Consequences of Appeasing North Korea

A few days ago, the North Korean military detonated its second nuclear weapon despite years and years of international talks and sanctions. The second bomb, much more powerful than the first, apparently came as a surprise to the world despite the warning signs. For years, the so-called “international community” has done its best to sate the changing wants and needs of the Hermit Kingdom. The US has promised energy security, food shipments, non-aggression pacts, and many other carrots. The only concession was that North Korea give up its nuclear weapon ambitions. Our generous offers have been taken, then thrown in our face time and time again for two decades. The unpredictable Kim Jong-il has extorted two American presidents, and now he's working on a third. Most disturbingly, North Korea has released itself from the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War. An act that may be the beginning of a new conflict on the Korean peninsula.

A Quick History of a Criminal State

Following World War II, the Korean peninsula was split between the Soviet Union, who occupied the north, and the Allies, who occupied the south. When elections were scheduled in 1948, the North refused to participate, no doubt suggested by the Soviet Union. From then on, the Korean peninsula was torn asunder. In 1950, the Korean War began when the North invaded the South to fulfill their claim over the entire area. After three years of war, an armistice was signed between the North, the South and the US-led UN force that protected the South Korean people.

The Juche (self-reliance) ideology, an off-shoot of Marxist-Leninist communism, was created and implemented by North Korea after the war. The basis of Juche is to rely on domestic materials, technology, and innovations instead of becoming dependent upon those from the outside world. Between the end the war and the death of its founder, Kim Il-sung, in 1994, North Korea became the second most industrialized nation in the Far East as well as one of the most militarized states in the entire world. Alas, the command economy prosperity came to end during the 1970s. The nation's massive military budget, its reliance of mineral export funds, its massive debts and the Soviet Union cutting aid down to trinkets because of North Korea's perceived Maoist leanings all brought North Korea to the place it's at today: one of the most famine stricken and economically destitute nations in the world. The North's economy now relies on generous international aid and criminal rackets like drug smuggling, arms dealing and counterfeiting currency.

The first of many aid extortions began in the early 1990s when, after signing the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1985, North Korea took great pains to slow the implementation of safeguards and inspections. This led to South Korea and the US returning to joint military exercises. The North retaliated by denying the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) entry into two nuclear waste sites, and then threatened to leave the NPT. Two years of talks over the North's nuclear program led to the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KPEDO), an agreement that would give the North two light water nuclear reactors if it would give up its nuclear weapons program. The KPEDO agreement didn't do that much, though, since in the years after its unveiling North Korea has tested numerous ballistic missiles, firing many of them over Japan, as well as threatened the South and many other nations with terrorism and war if it did get its way. After the Bush Administration took a tougher stance on nuclear proliferation, it has talked, then threatened, talked, then fired missiles. Worst of all, and what is the number one danger to our nation and others, is that it has been accused (with ample evidence) of a widespread missile and nuclear proliferation, some of its customers being Iran and Syria. All this has been done during nearly two decades of talks, agreements, counter agreements, treaty breaking, threats of war and any other kind of verbal political nonsense you can think of.

The Consequences of Appeasement

The past week has shown that carrots don't work without a stick. Sanctions and UN condemnations are just paper threats that the North knows won't work since they rely on the law, something the North constantly breaks and circumvents (with a supply of nuclear weapons being the evidence, of course). The only true stick in the area has been the tens of thousands of American troops stationed on the border, but those troops are there to prevent a second invasion, not to threaten action over proliferation of nuclear weapon technology and hostile acts with ballistic missiles. The lives of those troops, and that of the residents of Seoul, which is the target of a massive amount of North Korean artillery, are on the forefront of our minds when we talk to the North Koreans. When they threaten war, we back down or try to calm them down with extra goodies because we are responsible for the lives under threat. For nearly twenty years, they have been able to hold the lives of hundreds of thousands over us and reap the benefits of our hearts.

This situation is a very complex and very dangerous one that has no fast and easy answer. This traces back to the knife's edge we had to walk when the Chinese nearly wiped out UN forces and Soviets threatened annihilation if we pushed the North too far back. If we are to keep alive those we are responsible for, we cannot invade and remove the tyrants because they have a massive military ready to massacre anyone who threatens their paradise, including hundreds of thousands of South Korean civilians. We cannot make stable agreements because of the instability of the regime and its demands. We cannot use economic sanctions because the North makes its money through illegal means and stopping it requires a massive military interdiction operation which the North has called a “declaration of war”. But, because of our “cannot”s, the North now has the industry and knowledge to create and test powerful nuclear weapons. This is a game changer that both President Clinton and President Bush idiotically refused to deal with.

President Obama has little choice in dealing with North Korea. He could continue the aid, the talks and endless back and forth agreements that the North has proven it will never adhere to, but that would only put off what already appears to be the endgame for one of the last Stalinist dictatorships on the planet. It will also keep active the WMD black market which North Korea heads. As it is today, the country will not last much longer without major reform. It comes down to a question of do we want it to collapse upon itself through economic disaster or military chaos and risk the lives of millions of brutalized citizens? Or do we want to take control of this situation and guide it the best we can to a resolution that doesn't get near involvement in a horrific conventional (maybe nuclear) war with a crazed militarized state on its last legs?

How we do this? I don't know. I'm not an expert on North Korea and there are very few who can give detail of a nation that prides itself on its secrecy and rock-solid isolation. The clear overall decision, though, is for President Obama to stop the policy of appeasement of North Korea, for that will only guarantee its ability to produce more and more nuclear weapons, and nuclear weapon and ballistic missile technology, and sell it under our noses to our enemies. This would spread the danger from one manic, isolated nation to countless other unstable states that may have little inclination for self-preservation and graft, but are quite ready to set the world on fire to real their ideological goals.

North Korea Says Feed Me with Nuclear Weapon

Hello!

Leaders around the world strongly condemned North Korea's announcement that it conducted a nuclear test on Monday, with President Barack Obama calling it a matter of grave concern to all nations and Japan demanding action by the U.N. Security Council.

This has been going on for near twenty years now. They do something insane. We bribe them. They kill their own. They run out of resources because Communism sucks. They do something insane.

President "Evil Fascist Warmonger" Bush bribed them. I can only image President Obama's gift list.