Fisking the Indispensable Allies

Today the NYTimes published this editorial. Lets have a closer look.

"Iraq provides a textbook lesson for a superpower about the dangers of going it alone in the world, but the Bush administration seems to suffer from attention deficit disorder."

New York is a suburb of White Plains. Just because you write it, doesn't make it true. Repeating the fiction that the US is alone gets you a nomination to the truth challeneged. As of mid-July, the number of countries with troops in Iraq was 31. The number offering political support is larger still. Critics will note that US forces predominate. I remind them that the US represents about a third of military spending world-wide. Given that China and Russia are not on board, we are bound to predominate. If we are alone without China and Russia, we're alone most of the time. The other countries who seem to be able to keep us from being lonely are France and Germany, one of whom seeks as a matter of policy to oppose the US because they so miss the system of rival states under which they both did so very well between 1914 and 1945. France is fully deployed all over the globe in a large number of actally unilateral deployments, such as in the Ivory Coast and the Congo. In Afghanistan, Germany is the second largest provider of troops, comming in at a whopping 810. Today Germany has 6000 troops serving outside its borders and is more or less at its deployable limits. More than half of these troops are in Kosovo. Even if Germany and France were supportive of US policy in Iraq, they simply don't have the capacity to replace very many troops anywhere. Its simply true that we are not alone, and that our perponderance is a function of our greater capacity, not some kind of unilateralism. Unless your idea of coallition requires Russia and China.

"Some of its more hawkish officials are now pressing to confront Iran over its nuclear weapons development, regardless of whether America's main allies are convinced that diplomacy and inspections have been exhausted."

The distinction here is not between warlike hawks and peaceful doves, but hawks, who have keen vision, and ostriches, who hide their heads in the sand. As such, waiting for allies to become convinced that diplomacy and inspections are exhausted may be waiting for pigs to fly. It may never happen. Iran thumbs its nose at the big three (France, Germany, and UK) attempts to use diplomacy and inspections. In the midst of this, Iran even took UK Royal Marines captive. As I observed in late June, The Telegraph urged Blair to abandon the policy of rapprochement, coordinated with France and Germany, and shift toward the American position. Failed policies, even when based on pretty fantasies, are best abandoned. Iran wants a bomb and will build a bomb. One's choice is to accept it or prevent it. Attempts to convince them not to do so will prove fruitless.

"Nobody in Washington proposes invading Iran, but administration officials hint darkly about starting an effort to destabilize Tehran's clerical dictatorship."

It may well be that a change in regime driven by the most pro-American population in the Middle East and supported by a US administration is the most reliable way to prevent an Iranian bomb.

"Iran's ruling mullahs are justifiably unpopular. But unilateral American bullying is one sure way to rally flagging support for them among nationalistic Iranians."

I suppose that depnds on who, precisely is being bullied. Boris Johnson writing in the Telegraph observed, ""In deciding whether a country is suitable to wield nuclear weapons, you may think that its promotion of suicide bombers is not an encouraging sign." So when he asks, "on what grounds, exactly, should one country - no matter how powerful - be able to prohibit another sovereign state from acquiring a weapon that the government of that country may desire?" His answer is, " as soon as they have a full and functioning democracy, they can have the bomb that goes with it." Indeed there is quite a difference between bullying the tyranical, terrorist supporting mullahs, and the Iranian people. That's why a proper destabilization program supports the people against the tyranny. The Times seems to suppose we just start going off on Iranians.

"Stopping Iran from building nuclear weapons could eventually require strong, concerted international action. This is no time for Washington to strike out ahead of the allies whose active cooperation may well be needed in the months ahead."

Would that we lived in a world where strong international action condemned nuclear proliferation and supported those words with actions, rather than sales of nuclear proliferation materials. I'm talking to you, France, Germany, Russia, and China. Hmm, where have I seen this list before?

France: $1 billion in loans for the uranium enrichment plant at Tricastin. How is this investment repaid if the international community stops the project?
Germany: Considering sale of the German firm Sket Magdeburg, a machine tool manufacturer with their gas centrifuge and calutron production as well as other tools of weaponization.
Russia: Russian-Iranian nuclear accord which provides raw uranium, development of a uranium mine, and assistance building the Bushehr VVER-1,000MW reactor.
China: Besides just providing three research reactors in the mid-90's, China has provided technical assistance in plutonium enrichment and uranium mining.
source

Oh yeah, these are the key allies were need to keep from being alone. With friends like these ...

"Unlike Iraq's long-dormant nuclear weapons program, Iran's program seems to be moving steadily forward, and it has drawn sharp criticism from the International Atomic Energy Agency."

So did the genocide in Rwanda. So did the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia. So did Hussein's gassing the Kurds. Boy, that sharp criticism stops international crisies cold.

"Tehran has defiantly proclaimed its intention to produce enriched uranium, which can be used in bombs as well as electrical-power reactors. Late last month it resumed building the centrifuges needed for such enrichment, ending a construction freeze it had agreed to earlier this year with Britain, France and Germany."

Enriched uranium can also be used as paper-weights, but that's not what Iran wants it for. When an oil rich country wants nuclear development, I don't think its because its looking for low-cost power. A gallon of gas was going for a dime this past spring in Iran. In the United States we pay about twice per kilowatt-hour for oil produced electricity as we do for nuclear, but we're not getting our oil as cheaply as its available to Iran. It costs billions to produce nuclear facilities and there is the storage problem. Given our situation, we don't build them any more. Is dime-a-gallon-Iran looking for energy or bombs?

"Though Iran seems to be staying just within the limits of what is allowed under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, it is positioning itself so it could withdraw from the treaty and make bombs once it has completed building the new equipment and has amassed enough natural uranium to begin enrichment. "

It should remind one of the German penchant for gliders in the 1930's. Airforce? What airforce?

"The three European allies, while harboring few illusions about Iran's intentions, believe that tough-minded negotiations still have a chance of producing positive results."

How can negotiations be tough-minded unless their is a willingness to act if you don't achieve your goals? Tough talk backed up by stern criticsm doesn't frighten nuclear powers. As I said above, you can either accept that they will build a bomb, or do something about it. The only point in negotiations is to convince Iran what the consequences of its actions will be and your willingness to follow through. If they don't respect your actions or your willingness to impliment them, you may as well be doing nothing. (See David Sanger's Aug 8th peice in the NYTimes on the success of diplomacy so far in thwarting the nuclear ambitions of Iran and N. Korea.)

"Until they conclude otherwise, they are unlikely to support any American request to impose coercive sanctions."

Perhaps the flight of pigs will convince them otherwise.

"European officials are awaiting the results of an I.A.E.A. analysis of traces of enriched uranium found on centrifuge parts in Iran. That analysis should resolve, among other things, whether the parts were contaminated elsewhere, before Iran got them, or whether Iran has already begun a covert uranium-enrichment program in violation of its treaty commitments. The agency will announce its findings next month."

Given that Iranian cleric, Rafsanjani has advocated nuking Israel its clear that the stakes for failure here are serious. One is given hope by statements by Iranian commentators that, "the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", as it signals an awareness of the sword of damocles that is nuclear weapons. Once that realization is widespread, as it became in Latin America several decades ago, nuclear weapons research ends.

"Continuing uncertainty over issues like this argue for giving Europe's diplomacy some more time, but not much."

Its an encouraging thing to see "but not much" but I fear a case of Zeno's paradox. No matter how dangerous the situation, will we always hear the refrain, "just one more envoy?"

"Neither Europe nor America can afford to wake up one day to discover that Iran is quitting the nonproliferation treaty and building weapons. If diplomacy fails, tough Security Council action will be required to head off such a move by Iran, and Washington will need the full support of its key allies then. It should be fully supporting their diplomatic efforts now."

Waking up to an Iranian bomb, as we saw with North Korea, is not a matter of if, but when. If we could be sure that the French and Germans would be willing to take tough action before it was too late (if ever), this would be a reasonable position. I think France and Germany will accept an Iranian bomb before they are willing do stop one. As such, this approach is doomed to failure. Since we "cannot afford" this prospect, at the very least we should play the bad cop to the European's good cop, and ultimatly need to be willing to take the mullahs to the alley and work them over with a rubber hose if neccesary.