The Iran Thread (Now with everything!)

[Ender]

link

President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.

Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.

“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.

Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran’s test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets.

“It’s really all down to the Israelis,” the Pentagon official added. “This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn’t believe that anything but force will deter Iran.”

The official added that Israel had not so far presented Bush with a convincing military proposal. “If there is no solid plan, the amber will never turn to green,” he said.

There was also resistance inside the Pentagon from officers concerned about Iranian retaliation. “The uniform people are opposed to the attack plans, mainly because they think it will endanger our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,” the source said.

Complicating the calculations in both Washington and Tel Aviv is the prospect of an incoming Democratic president who has already made it clear that he prefers negotiation to the use of force.

Senator Barack Obama’s previous opposition to the war in Iraq, and his apparent doubts about the urgency of the Iranian threat, have intensified pressure on the Israeli hawks to act before November’s US presidential election. “If I were an Israeli I wouldn’t wait,” the Pentagon official added.

The latest round of regional tension was sparked by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which fired nine long and medium-range missiles in war game manoeuvres in the Gulf last Wednesday.

Iran’s state-run media reported that one of them was a modified Shahab-3 ballistic missile, which has a claimed range of 1,250 miles and could theoretically deliver a one-ton nuclear warhead over Israeli cities. Tel Aviv is about 650 miles from western Iran. General Hossein Salami, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander, boasted that “our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch”.

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, said she saw the launches as “evidence that the missile threat is not an imaginary one”, although the impact of the Iranian stunt was diminished on Thursday when it became clear that a photograph purporting to show the missiles being launched had been faked.

The one thing that all sides agree on is that any strike by either Iran or Israel would trigger a catastrophic round of retaliation that would rock global oil markets, send the price of petrol soaring and wreck the progress of the US military effort in Iraq.

Abdalla Salem El-Badri, secretary-general of Opec, the oil producers’ consortium, said last week that a military conflict involving Iran would see an “unlimited” rise in prices because any loss of Iranian production — or constriction of shipments through the Strait of Hormuz — could not be replaced. Iran is Opec’s second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia.

Equally worrying for Bush would be the impact on the US mission in Iraq, which after years of turmoil has seen gains from the military “surge” of the past few months, and on American operations in the wider region. A senior Iranian official said yesterday that Iran would destroy Israel and 32 American military bases in the Middle East in response to any attack.

Yet US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened. How genuine the Iranian threat is was the subject of intense debate last week, with some analysts arguing that Iran might have a useable nuclear weapon by next spring and others convinced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is engaged in a dangerous game of bluffing — mainly to impress a domestic Iranian audience that is struggling with economic setbacks and beginning to question his leadership.

Among the sceptics is Kenneth Katzman, a former CIA analyst and author of a book on the Revolutionary Guard. “I don’t subscribe to the view that Iran is in a position to inflict devastating damage on anyone,” said Katzman, who is best known for warning shortly before 9/11 that terrorists were planning to attack America.

“The Revolutionary Guards have always underperformed militarily,” he said. “Their equipment is quite inaccurate if not outright inoperable. Those missile launches were more like putting up a ‘beware of the dog’ sign. They want everyone to think that if you mess with them, you will get bitten.”

A former adviser to Rice noted that Ahmadinejad’s confrontational attitude had earned him powerful enemies among Iran’s religious leadership. Professor Shai Feldman, director of Middle East studies at Brandeis University, said the Iranian government was getting “clobbered” because of global economic strains. “His [Ahmadinejad's] failed policies have made Iran more vulnerable to sanctions and people close to the mullahs have decided he’s a liability,” he said.

In Israel, Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, has his own domestic problems with a corruption scandal that threatens to unseat him and the media have been rife with speculation that he might order an attack on Iran to distract attention from his difficulties. According to one of his closest friends, Olmert recently warned him that “in three months’ time it will be a different Middle East”.

Yet even the most hawkish officials acknowledge that Israel would face what would arguably be the most challenging military mission of its 60-year existence.

“No one here is talking about more than delaying the [nuclear] programme,” said the Pentagon source. He added that Israel would need to set back the Iranians by at least five years for an attack to be considered a success.

Even that may be beyond Israel’s competence if it has to act alone. Obvious targets would include Iran’s Isfahan plant, where uranium ore is converted into gas, the Natanz complex where this gas is used to enrich uranium in centrifuges and the plutonium-producing Arak heavy water plant. But Iran is known to have scattered other elements of its nuclear programme in underground facilities around the country. Neither US nor Israeli intelligence is certain that it knows where everything is.

“Maybe the Israelis could start off the attack and have us finish it off,” Katzman added. “And maybe that has been their intention all along. But in terms of the long-term military campaign that would be needed to permanently suppress Iran’s nuclear programme, only the US is perceived as having that capability right now.”

Wow, I love a good proxy war.

[Thanas]

^It won't be a proxy war. Iran is quite likely to start mess with western shipping in the gulf, fire up the shiites in Iraq and start bombarding Israel with rockets, while Hisbollah might start to fuck up Lebanon.

Maybe they can do something like Ossirak, but there is a huge risk that Iran will retaliate and to even give the go-ahead to something like this while american forces are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan proves once more that Bush and his administration are irresponsible chickenhawks.

[The Grim Squeaker]

People, it's HEZBOLLAH!

I may not be able to comment on this, but seriously get the damn name right, what's next, misspelling Ahmadinejad? .

Really, it's not that hard.

[Terralthra]

People, it's HEZBOLLAH!

I may not be able to comment on this, but seriously get the damn name right, what's next, misspelling Ahmadinejad? .

Really, it's not that hard.

There is no 'correct' transliteration from Arabic to the latin alphabet. Hezbollah, Hisbollah, Hezbullah, Hizbullah, Hezballah...They're all equally representative of how it's pronounced by various dialects of Arabic.

[Thanas]

People, it's HEZBOLLAH!

Blow me, for the reasons outlined in the post above this one, you pseudolinguist.

[The Kernel]

I wonder why the Times article and others like it seems so certain that the US is not going to join in on an attack against Iran. What exactly does lame-duck George W. Bush have to lose by doing an all out air campaign against Israel sometime between November 5th and January 20? Would this really surprise anyone at this point?

[The Kernel]

EDIT: Whoops, that should say against IRAN, not Israel...

[Darth Wong]

I don't think anyone would be surprised if Bush tried to pull it off, but I think that even he knows that he doesn't have the clout that he once did. He can't just say "jump" and watch the American people say "how high?" any more.

[The Kernel]

I don't think anyone would be surprised if Bush tried to pull it off, but I think that even he knows that he doesn't have the clout that he once did. He can't just say "jump" and watch the American people say "how high?" any more.

That kind of statement is precisely my point--why should Bush care what the American people think about this? It's not like he needs to sell the American people on air strikes; he can just give the word to the Air Force and conduct a bombing campaign for what is left of his presidency and there isn't a damn thing anyone can do about it. Sure there is the election, but there's a nice two month period between that and him leaving office that he can use, regardless of who wins in November.

Seriously, what does he have to lose at this point?

[Ender]

Seriously, what does he have to lose at this point?

The obedience of the military. The War Powers Resolution (WPR) [Title 50, United States Code, Sections 1541-1548] was passed in late 1973. 2 of the 8 sections apply here. Firstly

[quote="Section 1541 — "Purpose and policy""] (a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this [statute] to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.[/quote]

While (a) smacks to me of a power grab, its neither here nor there. They key bits here are (b) and (c), where they make it clear that congress has a war-making partnership with the Commander-in-Chief and they sharply limit his abilities under Article II powers as Commander-in-Chief.

Follow that up with this

[the President] in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces" into situations described in the previous section. Section 1543 required that the President regularly report to Congress (A) the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed forces; (B) the constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction took place; and (C) the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.

Translation: We will let you do what you need, but you must answer to us first.


Next part:

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted . . . the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces . . . unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States.

(d) Concurrent resolution for removal by President of United States Armed Forces

Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this section, at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution.

Pretty clear cut there.

So here is the tl;dr version: He has to brief congress of whatever they are going to due (note that the destabilization efforts are admitted to being done with the knowledge of congressional leaders), and they are capped at 60 days without congressional approval. Which barring some bizarre set of occurrences, he will not get. At that point, his orders will be unlawful. So he does need to sell it to the American people and Congress.

[The Kernel]

Ender, none of that would apply to a series of air strikes of a short period of time. The 60-day window would be more than sufficient and there is a clause that you could drive a truck through. Namely this:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Bush could easily argue that Iran has already attacked the US armed forces in Iraq by virtue of supporting (directly or indirectly) anti-american militants there.

[Straha]

^It won't be a proxy war. Iran is quite likely to start mess with western shipping in the gulf, fire up the shiites in Iraq and start bombarding Israel with rockets, while Hisbollah might start to fuck up Lebanon.

Maybe they can do something like Ossirak, but there is a huge risk that Iran will retaliate and to even give the go-ahead to something like this while american forces are bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan proves once more that Bush and his administration are irresponsible chickenhawks.

They wont touch the Shipping in the Gulf unless they're willing to piss off the Saudis and the Arab countries. I find it highly dubious that they'd be willing to take them on a second time considering that Iran still hasn't gotten over the severe economic damage from the last time.


I remember being at a speech about a year ago by an expert on Israel and Israeli intelligence/military (and a former editor in chief of the Jerusalem post I think?) gave a speech on modern Israel. In the question and answer session afterwards Iran came up and he predicted that Israel would attack right after the U.S. Election but before the new president or right before Iran was able to successfully operate 3,000 Nuclear centrifuges. Seeing as how the second has come already...

I somewhat doubt that Israel will go through with it, though. First off Iran is running record inflation and the people are not happy with Ahmadinejad, letting the election take its course without playing into Ahmadinejad's hands will get them a far saner president and will probably go much further towards getting the Iranian nuclear program shut down than any bombing campaign would. Further there're a couple different stories about whether America has green (or amber) lit the Israeli plan. The last I read on this was This Article in Haaretz which gives a very different picture on the situation. Also if Israel did attack, even with Iran's Hizbullah (Not happy Death? Fine... how's this:) حزب الله‎ card out of the picture Iran still has a fair bit of ordnance and will (indeed would have to) retaliate. The question would be how heavily they could retaliate, especially if they can't use their Air Force due to not being able to overfly Iraq and whether Israel would consider the damage they could deal worth it. Especially if there's only limited gain to be had (Iran has claimed that it's protecting its facilities from Israeli attack to prevent them from pulling what both Israel and Iran did to Iraq) from success.

Frankly, I don't think that Israel would risk it. But they've never exactly been sane in the past when it comes to their defense. And usually they've come out much better off then those around them.