Chief Cleric Says Iran Doesn’t Seek Nuclear Arms
(New York Times)…Nazila Fathi
Iran’s supreme religious leader vowed Tuesday that his country would pursue a peaceful atomic energy program and had no interest in nuclear weapons, calling them expensive and useless.
Ahmadinejad Predicts End For Israel, U.S. (USA Today)…Unattributed, June 3, 2008 , Pg. 5
Iran’s president said that Israel would soon disappear off the map and that the “satanic power” of the United States faced destruction.
Russia Can Be Part Of The Answer On Iran. (Wall Street Journal)…Charles Schumer. June 3, 2008, Pg. 19
Last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that Iran was installing an additional 6,000 centrifuges at Iran’s main nuclear enrichment complex. The Bush administration in turn needs to use every diplomatic tool in its arsenal to halt Tehran’s development of nuclear weapons.
Economic sanctions could cause the Iranian government to negotiate seriously with us, and might, over time, topple the theocracy. In fact, the mildest of economic sanctions – a boycott of Iranian banks by U.S. and European central banks – has already produced an economic slowdown, and unrest among Iranians.
ARTICLE: Israel Wins ‘Nuke War’ , Could destroy Iran: study, New York Post. December 25, 2007, By Andy Soltis
A doomsday war between nuclear-armed adversaries Iran and Israel would kill up to 28 million Iranians and destroy their nation, but the Jewish state might survive, according to a prestigious US think tank.
That would limit Israel’s deaths to as “few” as 200,000 – while its much more numerous and more powerful nukes would obliterate Iran, said the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Current media coverage on the topics of a potential conflict with Iran reminded me of the story on the results of a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran.
Secretary of Defense Gates referenced the need for the application of Smart Power in a Nov 26, 2007 speech in which he stated:
“… I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use “soft” power and for better integrating it with “hard” power. …. or as John Hamre once put it, to combine the tools of “intimidation” with the tools of “inspiration,” also called smart power
Examples on the application of Smart Power provided in the following articles:
Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure(Washington Post)
…Karen DeYoung. The United States should construct a combination of incentives and pressure to engage Iran, and may have missed earlier opportunities to begin a useful dialogue with Tehran, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday.
Gates Urges More Nongovernmental Contacts With Iran (Reuters.com)…Arshad Mohammed, Reuters
… Defense Secretary Robert Gates called on Wednesday for more unofficial contacts with Iran, saying this might eventually open a pathway to more substantive dialogue between the governments.
US Defense Secretary Urges More Private US Contacts With Iran (Yahoo.com)…Agence France-Presse
…”We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage with the Iranians and then sit down and talk with them,” he said in a talk at the American Academy of Diplomacy, referring to general US relations with Tehran.
ARTICLE: The New Cold War (New York Times)…Thomas L. Friedman, May 14, 2008
As the May 11 editorial in the Iranian daily Kayhan put it, “In the power struggle in the Middle East, there are only two sides: Iran and the U.S.” For now, Team America is losing on just about every front. How come?
When you have leverage, talk. When you don’t have leverage, get some — by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore.
Reinforces the need for “Smart” Power.
ARTICLE: A Plea To Quiet Drums On Iran, And Try Talk
(Chicago Tribune)…Stephen Kinzer, May 11, 2008
…Hardly a day goes by without new and more vivid threats against America’s newest supposed enemy, Iran. It seems almost unbelievable that the United States, so bloodied and weakened by its adventure in Iraq, would contemplate an attack on another Middle Eastern country. Yet some American leaders seem bent on it.
There are three possible ways for the U.S. to deal with growing threats from Iran. One is to do nothing, which will allow Iran to intensify its nuclear program in ways that could profoundly threaten the region and global stability. The second is to launch a military attack, which would have devastating “blowback” consequences for the U.S., Israel and the Western world. The third is negotiation. This option is so low-cost that it seems folly not to try.
Kinzer makes a case for negotiations.
BLOG POSTING: Alarmist on Iran, except ….
Comments by Tom Barnett regarding his article in Esquire magazine, The Man Between War and Peace (http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon), in context with the article in the Washington Post: U.S. Weighing Readiness for Military Action Against Iran, By Ann Scott Tyson, , April 26, 2008; Page A07
So, yes, I guess my piece in Esquire was as alarmist as some claimed, except:
-> I said Fallon could be fired and he was.
-> I said someone more pliable would be found, and he was.
-> I said Fallon’s firing could signal the ramp up on Iran and we get both Petraeus and Crocker saying that enemy #1 in Iraq is Iran.
-> And as soon as Petraeus is named, we get the obviously released story about the preparations for military strikes.
We are told by Gates and others that “this is all passed” and that the only ones who argue it isn’t are people who unduly alarm the public.
But the more open this latest ramp-up becomes, the harder it gets to deny. Those who simply mouth the Bush line will tell us again that this is all silly.
But the underlying truths remain: Bush has made his promises to friends in the region and Cheney believes it must be done on his watch.
As I mentioned in the Mission Accomplished posting, three options plus the choice of using soft or hard (smart) power:
1. Maintain/sustain the current situation?
2. Incremental change?¼br /> 3. Radical/Transformation Change?
EDITORIAL: The Price Of War? Obscuring the debate with fuzzy math.
(Washington Times)…Chris Duquette, May 9, 2008, pg. 21
Editorial provided a counter argument to economist Joseph Stiglitz, author of the book: “The Three-Trillion Dollar War”, that the war is the cause of our recession, contributed to the increase in the cost of war, and added to our national debt.
Editorial provides more facts on the debate: Rise in oil prices can be attributed to global demand and the weakening dollar. We are not in a recession as defined as two straight quarters of negative economic growth , and regarding debt, relative to an annual U.S. GDP of $14 trillion, the war is not unaffordable.
