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

European Union After the Greek Inevitable Collapse

Whether Greece is going to crash and be unable to pay the interest on their debt, let alone pay down the debt itself, no longer needs debating. The only discussion is when it will crash and what happens next. The crash could arrive this weekend or next weekend or some weekend coming in the near future, but my bet is it will officially succumb on a weekend in order to minimize any attention at the point of economic Armageddon. The fall will bring troops in the streets to contain the breakdown of civil society which will rapidly follow. Within days the markets will run out of food and the petrol will cease to flow. Cash, even Euros, will likely no longer be accepted for trade and instead precious metals or other items of barter will replace money. Government will fail as the employees begin to realize that they are not going to be paid their salaries and even if they were, the money would be worthless. The run on the banks has already begun as when it all falls down the banks will be forced to close. The borders of Greece will close to people leaving taking anything of value out of the country. Precious metals, gems, jewelry and any other objects of worth will not be allowed to be taken out of the country. If I was currently living in Greece I would take what I could and flee the country now while it is allowed. The real problem will be the affect it will have on the European Union and the Euro.

The first thing one needs to realize is the current economic emergency in Europe is mostly traceable to the unified currency called the Euro. Because ever country which has joined the Euro currency exchange has a unified currency, the countries who are in financial trouble are unable to adjust their currency in order to make their debt easier to pay simply by deflating the currency. They are stuck with a Euro which has a set worth that is beyond their ability to control. If Greece was still using the Greek Drachma they could allow their economy to have had steady inflation which would have reduced the exchange rate of the Drachma against the other currencies in the world. This would have allowed Greece to stay on top of their debt as by allowing economic inflation they would be actually lowering their debt while also making Greek products less expensive thus more attractive on foreign markets and the lower cost of doing business would have attracted industries to Greece thus allowing them to recover and grow their economy. Being stuck with the Euro they had a currency that remained fixed by external factors thus Greece could not adjust their place within the world markets. This is what aggravated their problems to this point where everything will simply go bust. The Greek economy will no longer support the currency the country is forced to use. The fastest way to try to actually address the Greek crisis would be to allow them to immediately revert to their native currency and set the Greek Drachma at a favorable exchange level in order to stimulate their economy. It might be too late to have this avoid the default at this late date, but it might be something worth considering. The problem this would cause is it sets a precedent which other countries would use to get out of using the Euro thus making the Euro the currency of the elite European countries and pushing its relative value upwards which would weaken the stronger European Union member countries’, such as Germany, economies. Such a move would actually spell the end of the Euro and everybody would be rushing back to their individual currencies and Europe would be facing its old problems which the Euro was set to be the grand solution. I think with Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and soon France all being in need of an instrument for adjusting their debts and market place of trade in the world through currency manipulation that this will bring down the European dream of a unified currency. The Euro will be the initial casualty as the economic tsunami that is racing towards many of the European Union member states.

The real problem behind this tragic set of circumstances is the European Union attempted something that is impossible even when studied in simple economic theory. Countries which have independent governments with differing economic policies cannot share a unified currency. I realize the theory was that the European Union would become sufficiently powerful as to dictate economic policies to its member states. Even if the European Union did not possess universal power, as long as they could set limits or, at the very least, have strong influence over the interest rates, levels of indebtedness, amount of social spending as percentage of GDP and other fiscal policies in order to have a more unified economic set of policies, then the Euro might have succeeded as a universal currency. But as each country had different interest rates, different retirement ages, differing benefit packages for workers, and similar disparities on almost every economic function, a universal currency was marked to fail from the start. Now the European Union is facing its inevitable predicament of what to do when the limited common governance leads to sufficient economic disparities that the common currency of the union can no longer be universally sustained. The countries and governors of the European Union must now decide exactly which precedent it finds least contemptible, allowing Greece to return to its native currency the Drachma or force Greece from the European Union cutting it adrift to fend for itself. At least if they only allow Greece to adopt their former currency then Greece can allow the Drachma to adjust in value until they reach an equilibrium where their economy begins to reemerge and strengthen sufficiently that Greece rebounds from its plunge and begins a real recovery. The option of pumping more funds into Greece cannot be the solution because unless the Greek economy is rejuvenated such funds would simply be absorbed without relieving the problem which can only be accomplished by devaluing the Greek currency which is impossible as long as they use the Euro.

This is where everything gets interesting. Should the European Union take the easiest route and simply cut Greece from being a member of the European Union and wish them a fond, or not so fond, farewell they will be sending signal to the other countries facing economic troubles the message that should you get into dire straits we will not be there till the end. The European Union would then have to live with the reputation of a fair weather club which casts out anyone who upsets their happy economic cart. Such a move would very likely be the death knell for the European Union which would likely find itself losing numerous other nations, both those who are having problems and those who fear remaining within the European Union would eventually lead them to have problems. Very quickly we would likely see Spain, Portugal, and Italy following Greece out of the European Union and back to their own currencies and happily enjoying renewed economic freedom to do what they must to retain their current socialist oases while adjusting their currencies thus repairing their sick economies, something not possible from inside the European Union while depending on the Euro. The European Union might find itself reduced to a union that included Germany, France, Great Britain and possibly some of the emerging nations from Eastern Europe who are still coming into their own after decades of Soviet domination and repression.

The other route would be to allow Greece to return to using their own currency for a set period, say eighteen months or until their economy stabilized. Then allow them to return to using the Euro which would now be adjusted to the new level of the Greek Drachma. This would allow for Greece to revalue their currency and then return and have a Euro that was actually matched to their real economic dynamic. The problem is once Greece returns to using the Euro, the same problem would begin to build up unless Greece made some radical changes to their economic and social systems, something which they have proven they are adverse to. Should the permanent change be allowed where Greece returned to the Drachma and was never to return to using the Euro, this would then force other countries to take whatever steps were necessary to take themselves out of the Euro and return to their national currency. Once the dominoes start falling this would bring the end of the Euro as a viable currency. Then the question becomes exactly how long the European Union remains viable once almost everyone, if not everyone, returns to their native currencies. The odds are this would bring on the slow but natural death of the European Union as it can only survive as long as it ties the economies of the different nations to each other. Once everyone has returned to their native currencies, then each nation would have economic independence which is the exact opposite of what the European Union was supposed to accomplish. So, whichever way the European Union turns, if it does not both give Greece a path to repair their economy through devaluing their currency relative to the rest of the nations in the European Union, a neat trick, and eventually return Greece to full implementation of the European Union and the Euro as their currency, then it will only be a matter of time before the European Union collapses in on itself. Then we will once again have a volatile Europe which who knows where that will lead. If Europe’s past is any indicator then it may be that Europe is in for a rough future. Then again, most of the European countries have surrendered any military might for socialistic blight, thus they may no longer be quite as rambunctious as their previous histories indicated.

Beyond the Cusp