FDD

Loyola on Iran's Nuclear Program

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal Europe, FDD Visiting Fellow Mario Loyola argued that

(1) The U.S. and its allies must be prepared to respond with military action if Iran withdraws from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

(2) The U.N. Security Council’s sanctions against Iran have failed — and will continue to fail — unless the West makes it clear that withdrawal from the IAEA will be considered a hostile act.

Silence on Iran Perhaps Not So Strange (ML)

Before December 2006, when the gloves apparently came off at least a little for the Bush administration, they appear to have decided not to retaliate overtly against the Iranians for the support we knew they were lending to anti-coalition operations in Iraq. So the administration used the "might be rogue elements operating outside Tehran's control" subterfuge to throw the press off the scent of what it knew perfectly well was Tehran's complicity, passive or active, in the attacks against American soldiers in Iraq. Since December, the U.S. has been a lot more aggressive towards Iran, cruising huge naval armadas just a few dozen miles from Iranian naval bases without prior notice; detaining hundreds of Iranians and Iranian proxies in Iraq; hammering Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, etc., etc.

In a sense, we may have been storing Iran's transgressions in the bank until the day we could cash them in to justify overt action against Iran. This only makes sense from a strategic point of view. I am all for deterrence, but deterrence presumes two conditions that do not obtain in the case of Iran: (1) that the adversary wants to avoid conflict, and (2) that the adversary is under unified control. Then there is the question of containment theory. If you retaliate automatically for every transgression at the moment the transgression is committed, you let the enemy control the timing of conflict, and you thereby concede to him the initiative. This is the criticism that John Lewis Gaddis levels against several postwar administrations — most of all Kennedy's — in his classic Strategies of Containment. Much better to wait until the moment of our own choosing to take the action most appropriate to achieve our lasting strategic aims.

Moreover, just because we haven't retaliated overtly doesn't mean we haven't retaliated covertly. We may well be fighting fire with fire — and in fact, Iran openly accuses the U.S. of doing precisely that. And let's not forget that the administration is not looking at Iran's terrorist activities in Iraq in isolation from the other things going on — including Iran's shifting political strategy in Iraq, and the diplomacy of the nuclear issue.

This is a complex web, much of which lies in the shadows of classified information and covert operations. U.S. policy is likely to make more sense in hindsight than it does now.

Iran Behind Latest Taking of British Hostages (AM)

Here's more indication, from the Times of London, of how well the new diplomatic engagement approach is going:

A group funded, trained and armed by Iran was responsible for kidnapping five British civilians in Baghdad last month, according to the commander of US forces in Iraq.

General David Petraeus told The Times yesterday that he believed that the men, four security guards and a consultant, were alive and added that there had been repeated attempts to free them. No demands have been made for their release.

Commandos searching for the hostages have staged a series of raids on suspected terrorist hide-outs. “There have been several operations to try to rescue them, we just have not had the right intelligence,” General Petraeus said. “There is a very intensive effort ongoing to try to locate and rescue them.”

The remarks are the first official acknowledgement of secret hostage rescue efforts that the British authorities refuse to comment on. They are also likely to inflame relations with Iran further. The general said that the terrorist cell responsible had very close ties to the Iranian authorities, but he fell short of accusing Tehran of complicity. ...

Joe Lieberman's Offense (CM)

National Review editorializes:

Our politics is at an extraordinary pass when a senator who suggests we should be prepared to take military action to protect American troops from hostilities undertaken by a sworn enemy of the United States is roundly denounced. No Republicans have spoken out in Lieberman’s defense. Nearly everyone wants to take a “see no evil” posture toward Iran’s involvement in Iraq, even though Gen. Petraeus has spoken forthrightly about its murderous handiwork. Lieberman’s offense was merely to speak the truth.

More here.

Negotiating with Iran (AM)

While the State Department engages in direct negotiations and joins the EU in pleading with the mullahs to stop enriching uranium, all of which the chuckling Iranian regime takes as a sign of weakness because it is, of course, a sign of weakness, Iran not only indicts Americans for death penalty offenses but now arms the Taliban against NATO, just as it has been arming Iraqi terrorists against U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq (that is, when not engaging in direct strikes against U.S. forces). See Bill Roggio here.

Tiger Hawk has the run-down here. As he says: "Make no mistake about it, Iran is waging war against the United States and its allies."

As I've mentioned before (see, e.g. here and here), throughout the 1990s, we pretended that we were not at war while a determined, implacable enemy was clearly at war with us. We saw the results. Iran was part of that enemy then, and it has never stopped. If killing Americans is not enough, just what exactly do they have to do before we do something meaningful in response?

James Woolsey Testifies on Iran Divestment Bill

On Thursday, May 3, James Woolsey, co-chair of the Committee on the Present Danger and an FDD Distinguished Advisor, testified before the Ohio House of Representatives in favor of a new bill that would prohibit the state's public investment funds from investing in foreign companies that have business ties or operations in Iran. Similar terror-free investing bills have gained momentum in Florida, Maryland, Texas and Colorado. Mr. Woolsey’s prepared testimony is available at www.fightingterror.org.

Captured British Soldier on Iranian TV (ML)

I think the Iranians gravely miscalculated by making that female British soldier appear on TV dressed in a Shiite black headscarf and white robe to deliver an apology that was obviously dictated and almost certainly coerced. The British are going to go ballistic over this.

Anyone remember that video of Saddam visiting the western hostages in the run-up to Desert Storm?  Saddam made the bad mistake of sitting a British child on his knee; the child looked terrified, and the British public woke up the next morning ready for war.

Tehran Seizure

On March 23, fifteen British naval personnel were seized by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in the northern Persian Gulf. In a symposium today on National Review Online, FDD Senior Fellow Walid Phares explains why this incident has the potential for global military, political, and economic fallout:

The Iranian abduction of 15 British soldiers in the Shatt al Arab area was intended to trigger a regional crisis. Iran’s strategic objectives are clear: First, to precipitate a British action ending in a projected political disaster. Second, to get Britain out of Iraq, thus isolating the U.S. in the region. Coupled with U.S. domestic pressures, Iran intends this event to trigger a swift U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

The looming economic sanctions, the capture of Iranian agents in Iraq, defections, and internal discontent with Ahmedinejad moved the mullahs make this bold move in their game of chess with the U.S., the U.K, and their regional allies; but it is only their latest move in the ongoing war they are waging.

In response, a multidimensional campaign should be launched, systematically yet gradually, instead of a single retaliation. Along with vigorous diplomatic pressures, the Coalition should formally condemn the regime and call for its isolation. It must create an unbalance of power with Iran via regional deployment while extending an emergency program of support to democracy forces within Iran, including a serious opposition broadcast.

Iran Starts Abandoning the Nonproliferation Treaty (ML)

Right on schedule, the Iranian government announced today that it will stop cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency on certain critical disclosure safeguards. On Sunday night, the Iranian government spokesman explained:

"After this illegal resolution was passed against Iran last night, it forced the government to act based on parliament's decision regarding the cooperation level with the agency and suspend parts of its activities with the agency," Elham told Iranian state television. 

"The government in a cabinet meeting today decided to suspend code 1-3 of minor arrangements of the safeguards." He was referring to the part of the International Atomic Energy Agency's code which specifies that countries should inform the agency of any new steps and decisions made in its nuclear programme.

He said Iran would only reconsider this decision if its nuclear case was returned to the IAEA from the UN Security Council where the file is now being handled. "This will continue until Iran's nuclear case is referred back to the IAEA from the UN Security Council," he said.

FDD Expert Reacts to British-Iranian Confrontation

Fifteen British sailors carrying out a routine inspection in the Persian Gulf were captured at gunpoint and taken into custody by Iranian naval vessels on Friday morning. Reacting to this incident, FDD Fellow Mario Loyola wrote on National Review Online that Iranian forces were likely “responding…to a carefully-planned provocation of our own”:

Recall the context: the Security Council route for dealing with Iran's nuclear program has clearly failed. The U.S. and its partners now have few options for responding to Iran's continued belligerence besides the current, fairly massive, naval and airpower buildup in the Gulf. Iran now has a western armada cruising just miles from its coasts, in waters well within its Economic Exploitation Zone — which means that U.S. Navy destroyers are probably waltzing around within Frisbee range of Iranian offshore drilling platforms. The gloves are coming off. And the risk-calculation here is as follows: If someone gets nervous and starts shooting, the timing would be more auspicious now for us than for the Iranians. Therefore, it only makes sense that American and British naval units operating in the Gulf would be in a more forward-leaning and aggressive posture than the Iranians.

Mario is a former consultant to the Defense Department who writes frequently on Iran and national security. His bio and recent writings are here.