China, India, North Korea, Japan, South Korea, Viet Nam, and the South China Sea

As if the arguments over China laying claim and total rights to all of the South China Sea including the right to prevent its usage by other nations and to intercept and claim all goods on any ship found in its waters wasn’t enough to drive the rest of the countries of Asia to the brink, the recent launch of a three stage rocket which proved capable of placing an object in orbit, even if not under total control, has made the games even more interesting. China’s South China Sea claims pushed India, Japan, and Viet Nam to join their forces and hold a joint naval operation in a move of unity and signaling their defiance of China’s claims. Japan has even taken the initial steps of amending their Constitution in order to allow them to strengthen their military making it able to operate away from their coastal waters and serve as more than simply a home-front guard. The levels of apprehension emanating from China’s neighbors are more than a simple reaction to China’s growing power, but are equally likely a reaction to the apparent diminishing of American power in South East Asia. With China rapidly expanding their naval power and soon to be launching modern aircraft carriers the nations in the area are starting to doubt if the United States will still be able to uphold their part of the treaties and conventions which had held the balance in the area until recently. With the announcement by United States President Obama that the American Navy will soon be downsized, and most critically, reducing the number of aircraft carriers and fleets by as much as one third has sent ripples of panic through the nations who had been dependent on the American Navy to be the overwhelming force in the Pacific but now are looking at a new order rushing into place where China is the eight-hundred pound gorilla in the Pacific Ocean. This situation will deserve close attention as it may be the best indicator of the waning of the United States as a global power and the emergence of China as one of the new central figures in the coming new order.

Enough said on China which has been well covered and on to this recent semi-successful launch by North Korea and its effect on the area. Already there have been reaction coming from politicians in Japan and South Korea and they are taking opposite sides. As has been the recent trend in South Korea to the developments and challenges coming from their northern neighbors, North Korea, they are once again preaching appeasement. South Korea has been slowly sliding towards some form of reconciliation and reuniting with the North Korea and away from their United States orbit. They have all the signs of a tired people who have simply accepted their inability to influence or alter the inevitable. The passivity of South Korean politics likely reflects the mood of the younger citizens as most polls show a continued desire to resist any influences coming from North Korea while indicating that the younger South Koreans favor compromises and finding a path that is non-combative and more agreeable, avoiding possibilities of conflict or misunderstanding. Time will tell if the political pendulum will continue to swing in this current direction or if it is reaching its apogee and is soon to begin to swing back towards defending the difference between the two Koreas.

Meanwhile, Japan is taking the exact opposite approach. Japanese politicians have almost universally expressed dismay and proposed defending their islands from the growing threat posed by North Korea. Where developing nuclear weapons has thus far mostly been a subject left untouched on the shelf, this reaction from Japan is consistent with their reactions to China’s growing militarism and aggressive attitudes over the South China Sea. Japan has been reaching out and establishing ties with India among other Asian countries who also feel threatened by China and now North Korea. Japan is currently working to free themselves from what was historically a self-imposed passivity after World War II when they insisted that being restricted militarily to a self-defense force by their constitution. Needless to say, the United States gladly complied. That restriction is very likely to become a relic of an age that is passing into history with few who recall the reasoning and desires that gripped Japan after the devastations brought upon themselves by their aggressions which led to World War II and their eventual crushing defeat. So, it appears that the old historic rivals may both soon be building militaries once again and heading for another episode in the series of conflicts that have been regular occurrences throughout all of history. As they say, the more things change, the more they remain the same. The one fact that makes this scenario even more threatening is the fact that China has a demographic time-bomb ticking away due to their one child per family laws. This has had two dangerous effects; the first is a rapidly aging population and the second is the large percentage of male children among the generations since the passage of the one child rules which has always historically led to wars since beginning of time.

Beyond the Cusp

Is Attack on Iran Necessarily Dangerous?

Read virtually any news source for a week on the global scene and there will be at least one person quoted claiming that for Israel, the United States, or anybody else to attack Iran over their nuclear program would be foolhardy, dangerous, risky, disastrous, catastrophic or a calamity. In virtually every case the claim is that since no attack upon the Iranian nuclear facilities will permanently end Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, any attack therefore falls short of the goal making it a failure. The argument is always in absolutes as if an attack must result in a total end and not simply a delay pushing the date for attaining weapons status further down the road. You would have to believe that anyone who attacked Iran thus pushing the date of their nuclear breakout anywhere from two to ten years into the future would be completely unable of attacking again when it appeared that Iran had once again come close to completion of weapons capability. Granted, such a resolution is far from perfect and would eventually fail to prevent Iran from building a nuclear arsenal, but doing nothing guarantees such an arsenal much sooner. The point these people seem to make beyond the inconclusive result is that attacking Iran would upset the cold calm and resultant low level of violence in the Middle East and might very well cause a major conflict to break out. When one considers the assets available to Iran to strike back without even using their own military forces by supplying and unleashing their terror proxies around the world, the prospect is indeed unnerving. Most who study the Middle East and Iran in particular are aware that Hezballah is capable of striking anywhere on the globe. Hezballah very likely has more numbers and wider distribution of assets than does al-Qaeda and most are familiar with the reach of al-Qaeda. There is nowhere in the Middle East, Africa, Europe or the Americas that is beyond the reach of Hezballah. It has long been known, as noted in articles from CNN in 2002, NBC News in 2007 and The Heritage Foundation in 2010, that Hezballah has a training facility in South American area known as the tri-border region which borders on Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay.

There is something troubling about these frightening statements which claim severe and varied disasters, they never address the issue of what the situation will be should nothing be done and Iran develop and produce deliverable nuclear weapons in even relative small numbers, say two dozen or so. Where I am more than willing to admit that any strike upon the Iranian nuclear facilities, no matter how precise and restrained from causing collateral damages or casualties, will necessarily lead to some form of retaliation ranging from significant terrorist strikes on targets world-wide targeting mainly assets of Israel, Britain, and the United States to a full-fledged war with multiple countries allying with Iran targeting mostly Israel and the naval and military assets belonging to the United States and those assets from allies which are also in the area. Neither of these scenarios is desirable and no sane person would risk such a retaliatory offensive if other venues could be availed in order to gain the same end result of preventing nuclear arms being produced by Iran. This is why there has not been any military solution implemented thus far and the avenues utilized thus far have been political, economic, social and other soft-power methods. These methods have been being pursued for well over a decade if one counts all economic sanctions against the Iranian government as the United States has had sanctions in place since the 1979 revolution which overthrew the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Despite ever growing restrictions on trade, the sanctions, both United Nations approved and independent sanctions by the United States and many European countries have proven insufficient to force the Iranian leadership to defer to demands and halt their enrichment of Uranium. Where Israel desires a definitive “Red Line” be drawn which, if crossed, would trigger the use of military force to halt Iranian progress with their nuclear programs, President Obama has refused and publically rebuked Israel over this demand. Meanwhile the nations of the European Union have applied even stricter sanctions than those of the United States which is, as is President Obama’s foreign policy is on most situations, leading from behind and has yet to ratchet up sanction to match the Europeans. Meanwhile President Obama and the State Department have issued waivers from having to apply sanctions on Iran to China, India, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom as they are dependent upon Iranian oil for their petroleum needs and other items which were also considered. Sometimes one might wonder if the sanctions are designed to fail or to simply be an annoyance but not the necessarily strangling of the Iranian economy which is necessitated if they are to be successful. One further point is North Korea and the sanctions which were placed upon them to prevent their attaining nuclear weapons capabilities and the fact that those sanctions which relegated some North Korean citizens to be near starvation, the sanctions proved insufficient in stopping their nuclear progress. Does anybody really and honestly expect Iran would be any less dedicated to their goal? So, if we note that the sanctions on Iran have as many holes in them as a colander, that sanctions have never in history prevented a determined nation from attaining nuclear weapons capability, and that it is apparent that neither President Obama, any of the European nations, Russia, China nor anybody else other than the remote possibility of Israel attacking the Iranian nuclear sites, then we had best begin to draw the picture of a world in which Iran has nuclear weapons and soon thereafter Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, and possibly other regional nations would join those nations with nuclear weapons.

In such a world and considering the volatility of the Middle East, how long could we expect that nuclear weapons might be deployed in a first strike capability and not simply kept as a deterrent such as existed during the Cold War? My optimistic prediction would be a decade at the very longest before somebody or group of nations would resort to deploying their nuclear weapons in an effort to destroy Israel or possible one of their neighboring rival states. What is more likely would be the use of a single nuclear weapon by a terrorist entity who would deliver it aboard a ship or plane very likely in a large western city or capital. The possible targets for a nuclear weapon aboard a personal craft, be it an ocean going vessel or a private jet, would be any major city with a port facility or an international or similarly large airport. Offhand that does not leave out any cities in the Western and industrial world. The only defense against such an attack would have to depend on having sufficient intelligence beforehand and preventing the craft from ever leaving its home port or, if it is a ship, intercepting it in international waters before it could approach the shore, and a plane would need to be shot down as once it was airborne there is no way to board the plane, only shooting it down would prevent the plane being used as a suicide bombing. Whatever the threat that we are now considering with just Iran having the possibility of becoming a nuclear power would be multiple times worse as the number of other nations decided that if Iran could have nuclear weapons and not suffer the wrath of the Western powers, then they too are going to also develop nuclear weapons. Then we would very likely be facing a whole new world equation as numerous developing nations, say the majority of the countries making up the one-hundred-twenty non-Aligned Countries in NAM, all having nuclear arsenals and scores to settle. Imagine if every instance in the world where there are currently terror strikes or an active war being fought and now place nuclear weapons at the disposal of those perpetrating the violence or those who respond to attacks also having a nuclear option with which they could forever be rid of an ancient enemy. Picture a military coup where some military leader decides to use their country’s nuclear weapons in order to remove the current government and they simply plan to move the capital city to a less radioactive city after the coup. A world where it might be possible that within fifty years there are over a hundred, maybe even approaching two-hundred nuclear armed nations and the future will not be one of security, it will be a ticking time-bomb. Imagine all the world leaders at the United Nations and they are all playing a game of bridge with their neighboring nation and one of them has a small nuclear device and we get to watch and see which table disappears in a mushroom cloud, and then which one will be next. All it would take is one country or madman to use the first nuclear weapon and after that, who knows. I really would not wish to find out, but it is likely I will not get my wish.

Beyond the Cusp

Iran, Nuclear Weapons, the West, Israel, and Taqiyya

Much of the conjecture we are hearing coming from the P5+1 (Five Permanent Security Council Members United States, Russia, China, England, and France plus Germany) negotiations with Iran over the Iranian nuclear program has been very troubling. There have been mentions that the fact that the Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa classifying the manufacture, possession or use of nuclear weapons by an Islamic entity to be a grave sin. According the United States State Department this has to be taken into consideration when addressing the Iranian nuclear program. This fatwa by the Iranian Supreme Leader must be regarded as a validation of the peaceful intent of the Iranians and as a strong indicator that it is impossible for Iran to pursue nuclear weapons while he remains their Supreme Leader. They attribute their certainty to the power of this fatwa to their deep respect and understanding of Islam, the Koran, Sharia and all aspects of Muslim life, politics, and religious influences. Well, there is another not so insignificant aspect of Islamic law, namely taqiyya. Taqiyya is the allowance, almost a commandment and not merely suggestion, for Muslims to lie to non-Muslims especially if it will further the spread of Islam. Just possibly this would allow for an Islamic cleric, such as the Iranian Supreme Leader, to issue a fatwa which is invalid and intended to serve the purpose of concealing actions forbidden by this false fatwa. Do you think perhaps the State Department might wish to include consideration that just possibly the Ayatollah Khamenei might have been issuing something more along the lines of taqiyya in the form of a fatwa? Perhaps that might be a good idea.

So far the negotiations with Iran have led to absolutely no discernible modification in Iranian work towards reaching nuclear weapons capability. The sole lull in their drive came in response to the remarkably quick and easy defeat of their neighbor’s military during the second Iraq war which removed Saddam Hussein from leadership in Iraq. This short stall of their program as they waited to see who was next on the American list after Iraq lasted less than six months, or so intelligence has reported. We might remember the Libyan reaction to this same event when they surrendered their entire nuclear research and stockpiles and opened up their country to full inspections by the IAEA. Outside of that blip in the graph, Iranian efforts in both missile research and development and drive for nuclear weapons has steadily gained ground meeting one requirement after another on their path to having ballistic nuclear tipped weapons, also referred to as a deliverable nuclear weapon. Currently the missile technology of the Iranians has progressed from inaccurate medium range rockets to programmable targeted missiles with two-thousand mile range which is classified as ballistic missiles, their next achievement will likely be intercontinental ballistic missiles, something they have displayed being near to achieving with the launches of orbital satellites. But not to worry, their Supreme Leader issued a fatwa likely aimed at the West as taqiyya, but he did issue that fatwa.

Meanwhile, the Iranians have been refusing to actually meet any of the demands or requests by the West and only giving platitudes and promises to the United Nations, IAEA and the P5+1 by agreeing and even signing on to agreements and arrangements while having no tangible intents to actually honor their stated concessions. Despite the Iranian lack of honest dealings, the latest approach of the P5+1 has been to modify their demands to allow Iran to continue to enrich Uranium but only to a level of three and a half percent and to forgo their program which has produced uranium to twenty percent enrichment. They are also requesting that Iran release all of their stockpiles of twenty percent uranium and rely on foreign suppliers to provide nuclear material for medical usage. Iran has bristled at this suggestion and is demanding they retain their right to enrich uranium to whatever levels their requirements demand which would include the twenty percent level for medical use. The fact that assessments by specialists that Iran has produced twenty percent uranium well in excess of any amounts required even using the most generous of assessments does not appear to have any relevance to either side of the deliberations. Iran is seeking and the P5+1 may actually be considering that sanctions on Iranian petroleum assets and their banking systems be relieved or completely removed in return for Iran agreeing to sign to allowing full inspections by the IAEA of all nuclear sites. Of course this would only apply to those sites which have been identified and not those sites which Iran has been able to keep from disclosure or discovery.

So, how does Israel fit into all of these machinations? The main concern towards Israel has been mentioned by or implied by the Obama Administration, the European Union, particularly their foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, and others from within the governments of the P5+1 has been preventing any military actions against the Iranian nuclear sites. The efforts to prevent Israeli actions have gone as far as revealing any plans or preliminary steps Israel may take in preparation for executing such missions. There have been leaks mostly from the American White House, though not traceable directly to President Obama yet, which have labeled numerous IAF training exercises as preparations for an Iranian strike, revealed the potential that the Israeli purchase of two decommissioned airfields in Azerbaijan located north of Iran and considerably closer to Iran could be used as a jumping off point or a refuel and emergency platform supporting an Iran strike, and releases and inferences of the extent of Israeli intelligence operations concerning the Iranian nuclear programs. It might be claimed that many in the P5+1 are more concerned with preventing Israeli military actions more than they care to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear armed nation. Yet, these are also the same forces which are insisting that Israel trust that they have protecting Israel from the threatened nuclear attacks by Iran as one of their primary reason d’etre. With their track record, who could blame Israel if they chose not to share information or their intents with even those claiming to be their friends and allies after such treatment of their efforts?

The real problem has become the fact that only one side has shown any willingness to compromise, though both sides have shown movement in their positions. The P5+1 held an original position that Iran had to surrender all uranium enrichment; all stockpiles of enriched uranium; rely on foreign supply of fuel rods for their reactors; surrender spent fuel rods in exchange for replacements; rely on foreign supply of all medical usage of nuclear elements; close permanently the Natanz facilities; open all sites including releasing the names and locations of all nuclear related and rocket research sites; and had yet to learn of the Furdow installations outside Qom or known of the high explosive research at an Iranian military facility. The P5+1 have modified their requests, downgraded from demands, that Iran cease enrichment beyond three and a half percent, surrender all stockpiles of twenty percent enriched uranium, the closure of the Furdow facilities, surrender all uranium enriched beyond three and a half percent, allow inspections of all known nuclear sites, and in return the P5+1 will permit the continued enrichment of uranium at Natanz to three and a half percent, manufacture of their own fuel rods, freedom to build additional reactors, Iran to oversee the decommissioned fuel rods, and no longer making demands on the missile or high explosive research carried out by the Iranian military usually by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. While the P5+1 have taken significant strides towards surrendering to Iranian demands, the Iranians have moved the goalposts further down the field by demanding not only enrichment to levels for use in their power generation reactors but also to levels for medical usage which would allow enrichment to twenty percent instead of only three and a half percent and have insisted that their research into missiles and explosives is not to be the concern of any foreign interest and thus must be allowed.

There is good reason as to why there are requests that Iran surrender enrichment to twenty percent and to limit them to only three and a half percent. To enrich uranium to the over ninety percent necessary for weaponizing takes significantly less effort and thus less time when starting with twenty percent enriched uranium. The difference is measured in months, not day or hours. It would take under six weeks for Iran to reach the needed amount of enriched uranium from twenty percent stock while it would likely take a minimum of four and as long as six months or even more to reach the same conditions for a weapon starting with three and a half percent enrichment as the starting level. The measurable additional time would also make it much easier for intelligence efforts to discover an Iranian move towards nuclear weapons which makes it all the more difficult. The intent is presumably to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, not just aiming to know when they have done so. This prevention is made easier the more Iran is restricted in enrichment procedures making none the most preferable amount. If Iran were forced to totally stop uranium enrichment, then all that would need to be detected would be the use of the specialized centrifuges which have telltale measurable properties. By permitting enrichment to any level would make it more difficult to detect Iran breaking the agreements as inspections would be necessary to detect even traces of higher enriched uranium. Requiring total disclosure and full inspections, including surprise unannounced spot inspections, along with permitting inspectors to inspect any or all military installations to check for any covert nuclear work, thus making the discovery of the unknown nuclear facilities would make efforts to prevent Iran reaching the breakout point far more difficult if not impossible. With the beginning of a slide away from their initial demands and weakening the requirements of Iran is not a good indicator of the resolve to prevent a nuclear armed Iran. Perhaps observing the allowed capitulation to Iran by the P5+1 is what has driven Israel to take a more cautious and nervous approach to the whole Iranian situation. How long before the State Department geniuses decide that twenty percent enrichment and inspections of the lobby of the Tehran International Airport will be the level Iran will be required to permit? Remember the one other item in this dance, Iran does not need the world’s permission, they simply require that they gain sufficient time until they produce nuclear weaponry which then makes all negotiations a moot point. If the world, especially any of the members of the P5+1, is serious about stopping the Iranian drive for nuclear weapon capability, then they need to stop the music, end the dance, and lay down the law and commit to whatever consequence may be required to put an end to Iranian progress, anything less is simply capitulation to evil intents.

Beyond the Cusp