Iran

I'll have a piece out today/tomorrow offering my specific thoughts on the Geneva deal. Until then, here's a collection of my previous writings on Iran.

Iran Nuclear Program - Discussion and Analysis (TV - Global Voice Hall)

5 ways US-Israeli Discord makes a good nuclear deal more likely (The National Review)

Flow Chart - Predicting the ramifications of an Israeli military operation against Iran (Blog)

Flow Chart - Predicting the regional ramifications of a nuclear armed Iran (Blog)

US Navy deployments... Iran? (Blog)

How Obama can achieve a good nuclear deal with Iran (The Guardian)

How to manage a nuclear theocracy (Blog)

2 Presidents and 3 diplomatic delusions regarding Iran (Blog)

4 Takeaways from the Filkins study of Qassem Suleimani (Blog)

Iran, the US and the UN - A skeptical take (Blog) 

Iran plans retaliation if US strikes Assad (Blog)

President Rouhani and the continuing risk of conflict (Blog)

The geo-strategic impact of Iran attaining a nuclear weapons capability (The Commentator)

How domestic politics influences Iranian, US and Israeli foreign policy (Blog)

How Iran will use brinkmanship to protect its nuclear program (The Guardian)

Israel could attack Iran without causing a major war in the region (The Guardian)

Iran and Diplomacy (Blog)

Strategic interplay in the Near/Middle East (The Daily Caller)

Netanyahu at the UN (Blog)

Netanyahu's strategy on Iran (The Daily Caller)

Iran plots against US and How US should have responded (Blog)

Other related writings...

Iran's Nuclear Program - Discussion and Analysis

In the video below you can watch my recent panel discussion with the Global Voice Hall. The topic - Iran's nuclear program + related concerns. It was a broad discussion and a lot of fun. Evan and (the other!) Tom were great hosts. If interested, related links here. I speak at 0.23, 1.24, 4.06, 8.24, 10.28, 13.41, 16.21, 18.15, 19.29, 21.19. That being said, Evan and Tom make some fantastic points - it's worth watching the whole thing!

Flow Chart - Predicting the ramifications of an Israeli military operation against Iran

Continuing from yesterday's flow chart - Predicting the regional ramifications of a nuclear armed Iran, the chart below offers my assessment of what might happen if Israel launches a military operation against Iran. Caveat- this is just a basic outline of thoughts. Related writings can be found here.

Flow Chart- Predicting the regional ramifications of a nuclear armed Iran

This chart encapsulates why I believe a serious peace deal (or it fails, the military option) must be pursued in order to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis. I accept that my graphics skills are limited!

Related writing links. If you prefer flow charts, here's my relevant piece on the Syrian Civil War.

The Speech Obama Should Give

I'm a conservative who believes that ObamaCare is both a functional and fiscal disaster (albeit one motivated by positive intentions). My previous writings on health care can be found here.

Nevertheless, if I were President Obama (and held his views), this is the Oval Office speech I would give...

Good evening. I appreciate your time.

Tonight, I want to briefly speak to you about Health Care. Specifically, to provide an update on the actions that my Administration is taking in order to address the problematic rollout of the Affordable Care Act.

First, let me re-emphasize my profound regret over what’s been happening. Implementing health care reform was always going to be complex. Yet complexity is no excuse for incompetence. The simple fact is that our failings have been inexcusable. 

Your government has let you down and for that, I'm deeply sorry.

Still, I recognize that sorrow can’t address these problems. Be under no illusion, we’re fixing this mess.

                                                    

To be clear; aside from the national defense, getting the Affordable Care Act to work properly is my number one priority.

Correspondingly, hundreds of dedicated professionals are working to ensure that the Exchange website - Healthcare.gov - is accessible, user friendly and reliable. Slowly but surely, we’re moving in the right direction. Tens of thousands of Americans have already used the Exchanges to successfully acquire health care plans. That number is growing quickly.

Of course, I’m aware that the successful health care reform will take more than a website that works. It also necessitates the empowerment of individual choices.

As such, alongside our repair efforts, my Administration is working with Congress to make sure that all Americans will be able to find plans that suit their individual needs. That includes those who are struggling with long term illnesses and those who are healthy. At the same time, my Administration will listen to suggestions from Democrats and Republicans about how we can make this law work better.

Again, I want you to know that I embrace my personal responsibility here.

Since its inception, many have come to know this law as ‘ObamaCare’. I accept that term. I accept it, because in the end, this is my law and my obligation. More importantly, I accept it because I care. I ran for President because I wanted to do good for everyone in our country. It pains me that that my health care reforms - designed to serve the common interest - are instead fostering emotional harm; that Americans are worrying they’ll lose health care plans they like and be left with ones they don’t. But it also pains me to know that at every hour and in every state, far too many Americans are forced to make terrible choices for the sake of their health and in some cases, their lives. 

This is the 21^st century, this is America. This is a place where no parent should be forced to choose between sending their child to college and getting better. This is a place where government incompetence is unforgivable and freedom from pain should never be a privilege.

I know there are no excuses for what's occurred. I know your patience is fracturing into understandable anger. I know that re-earning your trust will take time and the better measure of your future scrutiny. Nonetheless, with every ounce of my being, I also believe that when the kinks are finally straightened out, the Affordable Care Act will win your firm support.

With humility and renewed spirit, you have my personal and Presidential commitment; I’ll fix this law and make it worthy of your support.

Thank you for your time.

US Navy deployments... Iran?

At present, the Nimitz and Truman CSGs are underway in the 5th Fleet area of operations (Arabian Sea/Persian Gulf locale). The Nimitz CSG has now been deployed for eight months (a standard deployment is 6/7 months). Taking into account the fact that the Reagan and Bush CSGs are also operating in the Atlantic (a relatively short sail to the 5th Fleet AO), I think it's pretty obvious that the Pentagon is working to stack substantial military assets in the region. It's certainly interesting that over half the US Navy's total carrier force is at sea.

From my perspective, it's almost certain that escalating tensions between Iran and Israel are the motivating cause for this deployment structure (the Obama Administration is keen to cool US-Iranian tensions so the deployments are unlikely to mean deliberate US gunboat diplomacy). While the US is hopeful that Wednesday's recommencement of the P5+1 negotiations will bear fruit, the Obama Administration is simultaneously aware that their influence over Netanyahu is inherently limited... that Israel may attack Iran at any time. It's also worth noting that in the context of the sequester, these fleet deployments represent a major drain on scarce Defense Department resources. No longer does the US flex our military power without carefully weighing corollary cost considerations. That fact alone gives credence to the notion that Obama is worried.

Related writings.

Why Islamic Extremists Don't Appreciate Satire

The Lebanese Hizballah has a new cause of anger. Not with Israel. Nor with United States. Instead, with a television show.

Last Friday, the popular Lebanese TV station, LBCI, broadcast a sketch that satirized Hizballah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah. The reaction from Hizballah and its allies has been swift. All have demanded an apology and some have issued death threats. Underlying their anger is an unequivocal motif: ‘’Religion and its rituals are a red line.’’

Of course, at a basic level there’s nothing terribly surprising here. After all, asked to conceptualize an Islamic fundamentalist, few of us would offer ‘support for free speech’ as an answer. Still, there’s a deeper story here. Amidst the violent sectarian currents pitting them against each other, Islamist extremists are unified by the fury with which they react to satirical insults.

I think there are three reasons that explain why.

First, satirical insults are ‘ungodly’. In the eyes of Sunni extremists (at least those who incorporate the Salafi vein of Al Qa’ida, Al Shabab, Boko Haram etc.), satirical insults represent a perversion of humanity against God’s divine authority. As the 20^th century Egyptian writer (and Salafi favorite), Sayyid Qutb, put it, ‘’There is nothing beyond faith except unbelief, nothing beyond Islam except Jahiliyyah [separation from God], and nothing beyond the truth except falsehood.’’ Qutb continues, ‘’Jahili society because of its Jahili characteristics is not a worthy partner for compromise.’’ In large part, it’s from this totalitarian worldview that the 2006 cartoon protests became so pervasive. For many Sunni fundamentalists, a bomb bearing Prophet Mohammed isn’t simply regarded as an insult, but as a direct challenge to the intrinsic authority of God. In short, the worst form of insult. Similarly, under the Islamic jurisprudence of the Iranian theocrats/the Lebanese Hizballah (Khomeini’s ‘Governance of the Jurist’), satire against a religious leader represents an inferred challenge to God. Their philosophy is an Islamic version of the European ‘divine right of kings’. As a corollary, by mocking Nasrallah, Hizballah supporters regard LBCI as having mocked the very essence of human morality.

Second, satire weakens Islamic extremist authority structures. For organizations that exist on a self-perpetuating myth of ordained authority, satire humanizes that foundation in uncomfortable ways. Let’s be clear; regardless of particular ideology, Islamic extremists take root in a culture of intimidation. Absent their imposition of fear, advancing such inflexible political ideologies would be impossible. As a case in point, Hizballah’s influence in Lebanese political life is sustained by the group’s willingness to pursue politics by ‘other means’. In this sense, by overtly challenging Nasrallah, LBCI has illuminated an unspoken truth: Hizballah isn’t omnipotent. Ultimately, Hizballah’s real anger is not that Nasrallah was insulted, but that the LBCI has pierced his pretense of power. Already facing major problems in the disconnect between their proffered identity and their practical character, Hizballah regards satire as a direct threat.

Nevertheless, satirical insults also offer an opportunity to Islamic extremists. This leads us to point three.

The 'scandal' of a satire provides an opportunity for political mobilization. Whether cartoons or videos; in societies where Islam plays a pivotal social role, painting a localized satire as a broader insult against God offers a political goldmine. In the communal assembly of a protest, a 'scandal' can be manipulated to mobilize a larger agenda. It offers the chance to build a movement that will outlast the 'scandal'. This is especially true in the case of Hizballah. Where Salafi extremists quite literally resort to the machete in face of perceived insult (and invite corresponding retaliation), Nasrallah has traditionally realized that the protest is more powerful than the sword.

            At the core of these three points is a defining truth. For Islamic extremists; whatever attitudes they might hold towards each other, the receiving end of satire is intolerable. This discomfort speaks to the essential nature of these groups.

Where democratic societies find virtue in the pursuit of logic and knowledge, Islamic extremists hold virtue in their recognition of implicit and static truths.

Where we seek diversity of opinion, they subscribe to the authority of the ‘pure’ few. For us, political satire is at once an expression of freedom and a spark of debate. For them, it is an atrocity that cannot be forgiven. 

If interested, my related writings can be found here.

Notes on Sayyid Qutb

I've just been re-reading through some of my notes on Sayyid Qutb's 'Milestones'. Qutb, a favorite of Sunni extremist movements, inspires and encapsulates the totalitarian worldview that defines the political ideology of groups like al-Qaeda. Anyway, here are some of my more relevant notes.

Page 4

Complete subservience to Allah liberates the believer from his subservience to others.

9

Qutb's take on 'Jahiliyyah' (humanity's separation from God)- Jahiliyyah constitutes a direct rebellion against the sovereignty of God. Need to establish a pure ‘Din’ generation.

12

''Jahili society because of its Jahili characteristics is not a worthy partner for compromise.''

NOTE: The importance of unyielding resistance to Jahiliyyah – The faithful must not stray ''even one step'' from 'Din'.

19

‘There is no God but Allah’

NOTE: A fanatical interpretation of the Shahada: Allah’s path is the only path. God's authority is not debatable.

20

On the nature of 'Din' - ''It's system extends into aspects of life; it treats all minor or major affairs of mankind; it orders man’s life – not only in this world but also in the world to come: it gives information about the unseen as well as about the visible world; it not only deals with material things but also purifies intentions and ideas.''

NOTE: 'Din' offers a total, unencumbered guide for successful existence.

22

Prior to the formal adoption of Islamic law... ''The hearts and consciences of a people must be committed to a belief system that forbids submission to anyone other than Allah and that rejects the derivation of laws from any other source. Then, when such a group of people is ready and also gains practical influence in the society, various laws will be legislated according to their practical needs.''

43

Government must ''derive its laws from him (Allah) alone.''

NOTE: True freedom only exists under the protection of God's law.

51

The Muslim obligation is ''….to establish Allah’s authority on Earth.''

NOTE: The duty of an expansive Islamic Ummah.

52

'The object of this Din is all humanity and its sphere of action is the whole Earth.''

NOTE: The mission is global and total. See my related thoughts on the nature of global jihad.

53

Non-Muslims must pay tribute.

93

''There is my straight path. Then follow it, and do not follow other ways because they will scatter you from his path.''

NOTE: The only path is the path of 'Din'.

93

''But any place where the Islamic shari’ah is not enforced and where Islam is not dominant, becomes the home of hostility ('Dar al-Harb') for both the Muslims and the Dhimmis (non-Muslim residents).''

NOTE: Absent God's ordained will, society will perish.

101

''Grouping according to family and tribe and nation, or race and colour and country, are residues of the primitive state of man.''

NOTE: The supremacy of an encompassing faith.

102
''There is no Dar al-Islam where Islam’s way of life and its laws are not practiced.''

 NOTE: Absent God's ordained will, society will perish.

102

''There is nothing beyond faith except unbelief, nothing beyond Islam except Jahiliyyah, and nothing beyond the truth except falsehood.''

NOTE: The totalitarian nature of Islam as proscribed by Qutb.

104

''Islam cannot accept or agree to a situation which is half-Islam and half-Jahailiyyah.''

NOTE: In practical terms, this statement represents the inversion of Lincolnian virtue.

105

''Islam does not sanction the rule of wild desires. It has come to abolish all such concepts, laws, customs and traditions, and to replace them with a new concept of human life, to create a new world on the foundation of submission to the creator.''

NOTE: The fundamental power of theocratic rule against human interests.

107

''We need not rationalize Islam to them.''

NOTE: Qutb's Islam is beyond question or reproach. It's authority is both implicit and intrinsic.

113

''The chasm between Islam and Jahiliyyah is great, and a bridge is not to be built across it so that people on the two sides may mix with each other, but only so that the people of Jahiliyyah may come over to Islam…''

NOTE: Acceptance of Islam is not a choice, but a necessity.

114

''Do not be dejected nor grieve. You shall be the uppermost if you are believers.''

NOTE: The strength of ‘God’s' community.

125

''Do not consider those as dead who were killed in the way of Allah. They are living in the presence of their Lord and find sustenance from their sustainer. They enjoy what Allah has given them from his bounty, and are glad that those who are left behind and have not yet joined them shall have no fear nor shall they grieve. They rejoice in the glad tidings of Allah’s blessings and bounty, and in the promise that Allah will not fail to reward the believers.''

NOTE: Implication - although the path may appear tough, the outcome is certain and the rewards of 'service' are limitless. This has two points of immediate relevance. First, it reinforces the notion of jihadist martyrdom. Second, it obviously the reinforces the power of the theocratic elite.

Related thoughts.

How Obama can achieve a nuclear deal with Iran

My latest @ The Guardian - How Obama can achieve a nuclear deal with Iran

How to Manage a Nuclear Iran - Preparing for the Worst Case Scenario

It isn't just their support for Assad. Propelled by an ordained mission; from Baghdad to Beirut and from Buenos Aires to Washington DC, Khamenei and his agents leave no question as to their resolve.

Their commitment is paying off - Iran’s admittance to the nuclear arms club looks likelier with each passing day. To guard against diplomatic and/or military failure, we need to prepare to manage an Iran that's armed with nuclear weapons.

The danger is real. Having called President Obama on his ‘red line’ bluff, Assad has eviscerated American deterrent value. In Obama's eager détente with Rouhani, Iranian perceptions of American malleability have grown. As Dexter Filkins explains, Iran pays great attention to American resolve (or the absence thereof). As I’ve argued before; whether in terms of a regional arms race, a further sectarian dissection of Middle Eastern politics, or reactive strategies by Israel, an Iran possessing nuclear weapons would cause a geopolitical earthquake. In my opinion, faced with that world, the United States would need to enact a four-part strategic response.

    1) Obama would have to codify a new security doctrine.

Many commentators argue that the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran is greatly exaggerated. As they see it, the fear of mutually assured destruction would deter Iranian nuclear aggression. I disagree. Their supposition happily ignores Iran’s enshrined ideal of martyrdom (the ‘submission of the self’). Time and time again, Iran's leaders have risked catastrophic consequences in the pursuit of their political agenda. This is a regime that sent children to clear minefields during the Iran-Iraq war. This is a regime that continues to call for the annihilation of America and Israel. As a corollary, deterring a nuclear armed Iran would require more than SSBNs - it would demand Iran’s recognition of an alternate cost-benefit analysis. In short, Iran would have to believe that a direct or indirect (via terrorist proxy) nuclear attack against the United States or its allies would result in one-sided retaliatory apocalypse. Articulating this new framework would be a horrific clarification. It would also be absolutely necessary for global security.

               

    2) The US Government would have to counter-balance an emboldened Iranian security strategy.

Iran’s nuclear accession would catalyze the Revolutionary Guards/Iranian Intelligence. In this scenario, the US could not stand silent. US security interests would require increased disruption operations against covert Iranian activities around the world. Here, the overarching US intention would be a simple one – ensuring that Iranian hardliners understood their choices were bound inexorably to consequences beyond their control.

    3) The US would have to pursue a regional defense agreement.

Highly evident tensions between the US and Saudi Arabia emphasize the importance of this point. At a deeper level, were the US to fail in reconciling its security relationships to a nuclear Iran, the consequences would be disastrous. As encapsulated in the Syrian Civil War, in America’s absence, states like Qatar and Saudi Arabia revert to terrorist proxies as mechanisms of self-defense - without American reassurance, a nuclear Iran would likely be joined by a flourishing spring of Sunni Jihadism. Moreover, Saudi Arabia is already flirting with its own procurement of nuclear weapons.

    4) US nuclear weapons would have to be upgraded.

Facing a nuclear Iran, the assurance of continued US nuclear supremacy would be a non-negotiable.

It’s true; a replacement for America’s aging nuclear deterrent must recognize growing fiscal pressures. That being said, the acceptance of substantial costs would become unavoidable. Like all totalitarians, the Ayatollahs understand power in brutally simplistic terms – through the barrel of a gun. Bound to a credible deterrent doctrine as outlined in point (1), the United States would have to halt the creeping doubt surrounding its nuclear credibility.

              This 'management' plan would be complex, expensive and risky. Regardless, a nuclear Iran would systemically alter the geopolitics of the Middle East (and thus the world). America could not remain inert.

Related writings