- FEBRUARY 10, 2010
-
-
AFPAK
Why We Shouldn't Listen to Gen. McChrystal
-
MEIN KAMPF
Discrediting Hitler's Tome
-
IRAN
Regime Change Isn't Coming
A realistic approach to Iran's nuclear program
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Thursday, March 19, 2009 - 8:33 PM
Share
Dan Drezner is skeptical about trying to convince Iran to forego its nuclear program, and asks us realists: "Why on God's green earth would Iran ever accede to an agreement whereby it gives up any autonomy in its nuclear program?"
I'll take the bait.
To begin with, at this point I don't think it is possible to persuade Iran to give up full control of the nuclear fuel cycle. They've committed a lot of money and prestige to acquiring this capacity, the program is popular domestically, and it is legal within the confines of the NPT. So if our bottom line is for them to abandon enrichment, etc., we're almost certainly going to fail.
Our goal, instead, should be to convince Iran that it is better off not developing nuclear weapons, because that’s the issue we really care about. This means not enriching uranium to weapons grade, not reprocessing spent reactor fuel to extract bomb-making material, and not building or testing an actual device. Obviously, Iran would have to agree to sufficiently thorough inspections to ensure compliance.
I don’t know if it's possible to achieve this goal, but here's how I'd try.
First and foremost, the United States has to take the threat of military force and regime change off the table. Why? Because that's the main reason why Iran might like a nuclear deterrent in the first place. From Tehran's perspective, they have three nuclear powers in their neighborhood (Pakistan, India, and Israel), and U.S. troops on two sides (in Iraq and Afghanistan). U.S. naval forces patrol the Iranian Sea and Persian Gulf, and it is the stated policy of the U.S. government -- the world's strongest military power -- to seek the removal of the current Iranian regime. Indeed, we are reportedly engaged in various covert operations there already. Iranians can see that Saddam Hussein is dead and buried but Kim Jong Il is not, and they know one of the reasons why. They also know that Muammar al-Qaddafi agreed to give up his own WMD programs only after the Bush administration agreed not to try to overthrow him. Under these circumstances, it would be surprising if Iran wasn't interested in its own deterrent.
This means that the Obama administration's likely approach ("bigger carrots and bigger sticks," as outlined by special envoy Dennis Ross) is wrong-headed. We may need to think up different inducements, but bigger sticks (e.g., stronger sanctions) sends the wrong message, and repeated statements that military force is still "on the table" only gives Tehran additional incentive to master the full fuel cycle and then proceed to weaponize. If we are serious about diplomacy (and not simply looking for a pretext to use force later), Step 1 has to be reducing Iran's perceived need for a deterrent capability of its own. And as a number of Iran experts have already argued, the best way to do that is to pursue a comprehensive settlement of the key security issues that presently divide us.
Second, we need to explain to Iran that possessing a known nuclear weapons capability is not without its own costs and risks. Today, if a terrorist group somehow obtained a nuclear weapon and then used it, we would not suspect Iran of having provided it and they would face little risk of retaliation. Why not? Because we know they don’t have any weapons right now. But imagine how we might react a decade hence, if we knew that Iran had built a few nuclear weapons and some terrorist group whose agenda was somewhat similar to Iran's managed to explode a bomb somewhere in the world, or even on American soil? Under those terrible circumstances, Tehran would have to worry a lot about U.S. retaliation, even if it had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack. Nuclear forensics is hardly perfect (or so my physicist colleagues tell me) and the United States has been known to shoot first and ask questions later in the past. (I'd remind Iranian officials that former Deputy Sec/Def Paul Wolfowitz recommended attacking Iraq less than a week after 9/11, and we eventually did invade that country, even though it had no WMD and had nothing to do with al Qaeda's attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon). So Iran should not be confident that we'd act with precision and restraint in the aftermath of a nuclear terrorist attack, and that concern ought to give them pause about whether joining the nuclear weapons club is a net plus.
I'd also point out to them that acquiring nuclear weapons will encourage other states in the Middle East to follow suit. Given that Iran has a lot more latent power potential than its neighbors in the Gulf, it should prefer to confine the competition there to the conventional realm, where its larger population and considerable economic potential will inevitably give it considerable influence.
Thus, from a purely realist perspective, Iran might actually be better off with the "Japan option": possessing the latent capability to build nuclear weapons if circumstances required, but avoiding the costs and risks by refraining from exercising that option. If we want to convince Tehran to forego nuclear weapons, therefore, our diplomatic efforts ought to focus on explaining this situation to our Iranian counterparts, instead of merely brandishing bigger sticks or waving bigger carrots.
It is impossible to know if this strategy would work, but it is worth remembering that as far as we know, Iran has no nuclear weapons program today. Iran has signaled on several occasions since 9/11 that it was interested in a negotiated settlement with the United States. There have also been several other moments when the two states managed to cooperate in more limited ways. And if diplomacy doesn't succeed, the United States and its allies in the region can always fall back on deterrence. By saying that the United States should "non-violently" prepare for an Iranian nuclear weapons capability, I take it that Drezner recognizes that preventive war won't solve this problem and could easily make a lot of other problems worse. We've deterred bigger and tougher adversaries in the past, and while I'd strongly prefer that Iran decide not to become a nuclear weapons state, I'm not going to panic if it does cross that line at some point down the road. And neither should anyone else.
Majid Saeedi/Getty Images
That reasoning might be applicable relative to the US
It is a prospect, though strained, that the US might establish a "talk first, shoot only at last resort" relationship with Iran.
It is NOT a prospect, without a radical change in Iranian foreign policy, for Israel to do so.
Iran unconditionally rejects and opposes Israel. Its policy is not constructed as a reflection of how they are treated, but is cardinal.
And, although Israel is not a member of the non-proliferation regime, not subject to inspections (like India), and can only be suspected (not known) how many warheads they possess. Its not knowable for any of us even if they have nuclear weapons, regardless of the testimony of an individual whistle-blower. Even a "slip" from Israeli officials, may not be truth, but intentional deterrence.
I know you define this as one example of where Israeli relations with another state, might conflict with the US relations.
I'm not so sure if the appropriate response to an exageration of alliance (to the level of unconditionality), is rejection of that alliance. I believe that as there are CONSIDERABLE real relations between the US and Israel (economic, cultural, intelligence, families), that it is in the US interests to insist that Iran cease proxy military threats on Israel.
It would not be in the US interest to risk REAL relations with Israel for the gamble of prospective tense and less involved one with Iran. (Economic relations between Israel and the US include companies like Microsoft, Intel, Motorola, Sun, photovoltaics, water-preserving agricultural research, desalinization, electric vehicles; all forward thinking relationships guided by positive motivation). There is no similar prospect even with Iran.
Iran has the capability of being a collaborator with the US. There are brilliant and effective individuals and companies in Iran.
Ironically, they would have a natural relationship with Israeli, if they weren't committed to Israel's removal.
"it is legal within the confines of the NPT."
Thank you so much for not letting this falling under the table.
What if they have considered your points and concluded that a policy of ambiguity is in their interest? It could be that they want to master the fuel cycle and develop delivery systems without ever technically breaching the NPT - simply maintaining the capability of weaponizing relatively quickly if the strategic situation required it in their view. I am not sure if this is truly practicable without salting away some material for quick use, but it seems to conform to their public statements.
I think the real issue for them submitting to effective controls is that they would want an effective security commitment which we are not in a position to credibly provide.
iran nukes america. thanks, boris.
how do we justify a nuke first strike on russia, i wonder?
boris berezovsky is a mathematician and game theory guy, or more specifically, a "decision theorist", with lots of heavy duty computer expertise. So he's a psychohistorian….
the tricky part is figuring out whose side he's on. He's definitely against putin, he's an israeli citizen, although he's a little too classy to hang out in israel. But his citizenship gives us a hint of his leanings. Other than that, he may be just another run-of-the-mill psychopath who has only one side: his own.
we know berezovsky helped install the drunk yeltsin so he could help himself to russia's assets as the soviet union collapsed. Some russians believe berezovsky was a major cause of that collapse. We know he's a crook who faces russian charges of tax evasion, fraud and grand theft.
we know he's been mixed up in murder cases --being boris' buddy is one of the most hazardous occupations on earth-- and we know he was displeased with paul klebnikov, the american editor of forbes' russian edition who wrote a book about berezovsky's criminal behavior, including the murder of one of russia's most famous television personalities... so we got listyev, klebnikov followed by politkovskaya and litvenenko... all murdered, all connectied with mr. berzovsky.
berezovsky supported putin in the 2000 elections in russia, but started calling for violent overthrow of putin once putin cracked down on israeli russian oligarchs... israeli americans and the zionist media are also gunning for putin, because he threw a monkeywrench into neocon plans to use russian oil while they remodeled the middle east oil patch.
we know berezovsky is associated with bunnypants brother, neil bunnypants, in business, and lord knows how those boys define "business". So that's another indication of berezovsky's leanings.
we know boris is involved with chechens, and he paid chechen terrorist leader shamil basayev millions of dollars... basayev was the great white hope for driving russians from the north caucasus and chopping off that chunk of russia that hangs down to the caspian and black seas...which would clear the way the PNAC pipelines, and would further isolate russia by blocking russian access to its southern european export port.
map 3309 x 3408
we know boris backed yulia, yushchenko and the "orange revolution" in ukraine, which supposedly would be more favorable to the PNAC european pipeline. yulia's had her ups and downs, but is currently back in power, up to her eyeballs in the continuing shootouts between russia and ukraine over gas supplies... but that's what the "orange revolution" was about: installing PNAC puppets to block russian access to european energy markets.
we know boris has made secret trips to kyrgyzstan, site of the "tulip revolution" that was supposed to give israeli america another foothold in central asia, block russian access to markets and block chinese access to energy.
and you got to wonder how berezovsky's "decision theories" dovetail with good ol' doc aumann's "game theories", dont you?
and we got to wonder why there was such an uproar about aumann getting the nobel prize.... there must be lots of people who are beginning to understand the role of psychohistorians like berezovsky and aumann in planning wars, and incidents that trigger wars, and tiny applications of force that cause massive changes in the course of history.
but the most worrisome thing about berezovsky is his statement that chechens acquired nukes as the soviets union collapsed...
he's planting a legend that can be used in a nuke false flag operation.
nuke primacy and benevolent hegemony: glowing in the dark
if america's been built from the ground up dependent on cheap oil, and if israel is dependent on america for its survival, and if america is threatened by peak oil, that means israel is threatened by peak oil at one remove.
since oil produces co2, and israel is threatened by sea level rise caused by global warming caused by co2 caused by burning oil, an effort must be made to curb co2 production by curbing use of oil, especially seeing as how china recently overtook the US as the world's biggest producer of co2...
curbing chinese use of energy means grabbing control of enough oil to forcibly restrict chinese access to oil... not to mention these PNAC dreams of global hegemony through control of energy, enforced, as a last resort, by nuke first strikes on russia and china.
.
...the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one -- as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield.
If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left.
The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy From CFR Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006
.
i have to admit that all this sounds so loony that it's probably nothing more than scare tactics intended to provide cover as america's looted.
if america's been built from the ground up dependent on cheap oil,
It has.
and if israel is dependent on america for its survival
It appears to be.
and if america is threatened by peak oil
It is.
that means israel is threatened by peak oil at one remove.
And directly, too. Israel will suffer from high oil prices at least as much as the USA, unless the USA pays for israel's extra oil costs.
since oil produces co2, and israel is threatened by sea level rise caused by global warming caused by co2 caused by burning oil, an effort must be made to curb co2 production by curbing use of oil, especially seeing as how china recently overtook the US as the world's biggest producer of co2...
Nobody knows how long it will take the sea level to rise. It could be 10 years or 200 years. It depends on things that are not well-understood.
curbing chinese use of energy means grabbing control of enough oil to forcibly restrict chinese access to oil...
WHOA! China has hard currency. They can buy as much oil as they want on the world market, and they tend to lock in long-term contracts at rates their suppliers feel is fair. We can't compete with them on that because our economy is moribund. The only way to do what you say is to steal the oil. That's radical, dude! You're talking about us becoming pirates! For a good cause, to stop global warming, but.... And that assumes that we don't burn the oil from every tanker we steal. If we burn it ourselves then we haven't helped global warming either.
This is crazy talk. We'd do a lot better to find an alternate energy that's cheaper than burning oil, and let the chinese use that.
Becoming pirates to prevent global warming is a very unusual idea. Arrrgh!
Have you perhaps heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
map: blocking chinese access to energy
we have a military advantage over china.
the operative phrase in that sentence you quoted is "forcibly restrict chinese access to energy".
neocons = checkers... russians = chess... chinese = go
given neocon ambitions to establish benevolent global hegemony through control of energy and energy transportation routes, it's really kinda hard to view any oily place as a "trap" ...seeing as how the neocons would have gone into SW asia no matter what.
the chinese have sweetened the pot, though ---or if you prefer to think in terms of "traps", they've dropped a big chunk of bait--- with their "plans" for a pipeline terminus, LNG and oil tanker port, and refinery, all at gwadar... and they've dropped another hunk of bait that extends the full length of pakistan, that bait being a pipeline from iran through pakistan to china along the KKH highway.
so, if you want to look at this operation from the "trap" angle, you can say that china spent $200 million on gwadar, installed a handful of cranes, and lured the israeli americans into spending trillions on an opertation to "thwart" the chinese project.
uh huh.
meanwhile, china is the israeli americans' biggest competitor for energy... and it's way too bad that china can buy the stuff faster than israeli america can steal it.
Here is a link to the argument that a lack of pirates causes global warming:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming
Iran vis-a-vis Israel and the NPT
First, as to Iran's stance towards Israel, it's important to note that Iran's anti-Israeli attitude originated the same way its anti-American attitude did: after the revolution, because of Israeli and American coddling of the Shah. While they still chant "Death to Israel" (and "Death to America"), their ACTIONS do not reflect the same attitude as they did in the 1980s. We can listen to Ahmadinejad say anything he wants about Israel but at the end of the day he is only the President of Iran and therefore really only has domestic economic power. If you listen to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the person who actually wields Iranian military power, diplomatic power, and essentially holds an absolute veto power over anything, you do not hear the same things from him. During the Gaza debacle he declared that going and fighting Israel as an Iranian is forbidden in Islam. So I would think Iran would be open to relations once the Palestinian issue is resolved. I can't say the same for sure about the Likuds in Israel.
Secondly, you are right, Iran has not violated the NPT. And I agree with the steps you outlined above as to convincing Iran that it does not need nuclear weapons. Yet even if Iran does not build weapons but still has the capability to do so, it's likely other states in the region would follow: most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and possibly Turkey. The NPT is a flawed document. There needs to be an IAEA-like organization that can offer industrial grade uranium (about 10% U-235) on the cheap, while the actual IAEA monitors it all and ensures that spent fuel is returned to the former agency and is not used to create weapons grade uranium (about 95% U-235). This is not unlike what Russia is currently doing with Iran by providing it with fuel and then taking the spent fuel back, although it'd be preferable for this to be done by an international organization rather than a state even if it is obvious Russia does not particularly want Iran to build weapons, either. This would allow states like Iran to develop civilian nuclear facilities that they are legally entitled to while ensuring that they do not develop nuclear weapons.
Iran's positions are un-conditional
Whether they originated in angers about the Shah or not, that period is long gone.
The basis of their policy re:Israel is stated as unconditional, with no prospect of fundamental change.
They are on a curve of regional weight, not an effort to be a small part of something that already exists. They are not asking for a place at a large table of peers (including Israel).
Actually, it was the Israelis who turned hostile against Iran because they saw Iran has a potential obstacle to Israeli domination of the Mideast and competitor to relations with the US.
Dr Trita Parsi has written about this:
But it wasn’t Iran that turned the Israeli-Iranian cold war warm – it was Israel....The Israeli reversal on Iran was partially motivated by the fear that its strategic importance would diminish significantly in the post-cold war middle east if the then president (1989-97) Hashemi Rafsanjani’s outreach to the Bush Sr administration was successful.
- Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States
http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300120575
There needs to be an IAEA-like organization that can offer industrial grade uranium (about 10% U-235) on the cheap, while the actual IAEA monitors it all and ensures that spent fuel is returned to the former agency and is not used to create weapons grade uranium (about 95% U-235).
Enriched U235 is expensive. Plutonium is cheap.
Weapons-grade uranium is very expensive. Plutonium is cheap.
You want iran to settle for expensive nuclear power that is controlled by foreigners, that can be embargoed whenever the USA wants to (or currently when russia agrees).
But iran could have cheap nuclear power if they do it themselves. Mine their own uranium, process it to plutonium in their own reactors, cheap.
And the reason they should pay all this money and accept foreign domination is that you are afraid they might make bombs if they are allowed to do it themselves.
Meanwhile israel is making bombs.
Do you see how this would look utterly bogus to iranians?
The risks of a simultaneous embargo by all nations with uranium (I think around 30 have reserves) to a country that complies with international agreements, is remote.
The risk of war with Israel is not remote.
They risk it incrementally, daily, unconditionally.
It is a choice that they can make. When they pose it as "dare me" or "we will not be bullied", then they set themselves up to their unconditional stance.
I assume that you read or saw Obama's fig leaf to Iran today?
all you guys gots to do, now, is cough up some proof of iran's weapons program.
failing at that, i guess you could do a false flag attack on america or american assets... say, sink an american carrier in hormuz, or maybe do a cruise missile attack from one of your subs...
once the attack was accomplished, the spin machinery goes into action... duck soup.
i mean, you got the tools, so what are you waiting for?
The risks of a simultaneous embargo by all nations with uranium (I think around 30 have reserves) to a country that complies with international agreements, is remote.
The USA already has effective sanctions on iran. When iran has not actually violated international agreements.
You want them to base their whole electric power grid on the assumption that we can't do sanctions later?
Well, of course you do. You're a zionist. But reasonable people wouldn't expect that.
Iran is in full compliance with international agreements. Its nuclear program is perfectly legal. Demands that it abandon the program are themselves illegal.
From Tehran's perspective, they have three nuclear powers in their neighborhood (Pakistan, India, and Israel), and U.S. troops on two sides (in Iraq and Afghanistan). U.S. naval forces patrol the Iranian Sea and Persian Gulf, and it is the stated policy of the U.S. government -- the world's strongest military power -- to seek the removal of the current Iranian regime. Indeed, we are reportedly engaged in various covert operations there already. Iranians can see that Saddam Hussein is dead and buried but Kim Jong Il is not, and they know one of the reasons why. They also know that Muammar al-Qaddafi agreed to give up his own WMD programs only after the Bush administration agreed not to try to overthrow him. Under these circumstances, it would be surprising if Iran wasn't interested in its own deterrent.
Jumping from Iran to Libya?!
Is Libya surrounded by foure nuclear powers in their neighborhood (Pakistan, India, and Israel and ex-soviet states)?
While even yourself is not sure who is the Boss in Israel why would you think Iran can be convinced to be secure of national threats around her? Are you going to offer them Missile-shields;->>>
Be realistic Mate! Would you buy it yourself?
Why don't you annex Israel as another star, star of David on your Flag, that would be realistic, then Iranians would know whom they are dealing with;->>
And that would cost the Taxpayers less, believe your Treasury;->>
You could add Iraq and Afghanistan as a crescent later on;->>
BTW, have we decided who is the Boss at CH?
Grand Sen~or.
well, whatever else needs to be done...
...israel has to have a fairly long war with iran... long enough to keep hormuz closed so those pipelines can be built from the persian gulf to the med through israel.
how else is israel gonna make a living once america goes under, if not by transit fees and control of oil?
so war with iran is a necessity.
and if everyone plays their cards right, the global economy will be boogered up so bad nobody will notice oil production has peaked... which is one of the main objects in the current "economic 9/11" game: crash the economy, destroy demand for oil, and obscure peak oil so no one will connect the dots between peak oil and 9/11... and it seems to be working, at least for the time being.
it just seems unlikely to me that the ringleaders of israel believe their own propaganda about iran... nope, they just want war to close hormuz.
Israel just want war to close hormuz.
Of course this ignores the fact that Israel is just a client State and Hurmuz is under control.
Client States have a prescribed role, they cannot act realistically, they just play their roles.
Grand Sen~or.
peak oil = trigger... sea level rise = long term motive
as of 11 March, 2009, 13:50 GMT
oil graph: production, drills working, price. gold price, dollar index.
references:
as the looting continues, oil production continues to fall, as does the number of drills working...
we can probably be confident that the cause/effect relationship between peak oil and 9/11 has been successfully obscured, at least for the time being.
Wadosy, you have a lot of interesting information there. But your conclusions are wacky.
No, the global depression was not started to keep people from seeing that peak oil was the motivation for 9/11.
You act like you believe there is one conspiracy that everything ties into. Of course there are thousands of conspiracies. The world is a fine apple and everybody wants a bite. But one single effective conspiracy? Not likely.
good ol' doc aumann to the rescue...
maybe we're creeping up on a third tenet of government by psychohistory here: lie your ass off, always.
sound like anybody you're familiar with?
The extension introduces yet another strategic element: incentives to conceal or reveal private information to other players.
How might a person, firm or country who has extra information utilize the advantage?
How might an ignorant player infer information known to another player by observing that player’s past actions?
Should an informed player take advantage of the information for short-run gains, thereby risking to reveal his information to other players, or should he conceal the information in order to gain more in the future?
Robert Aumann’s and Thomas Schelling’s Contributions to Game Theory
we can see from aumann's game theories why it's so important to control the flow of information...
israel, the israeli americans, exxon and their fellow travelers knew about peak oil and global warming long before 9/11, and they had to respond to peak oil and global warming before peak oil and global warming became obvious.
...all of which accounts for the AEI/CERA/exxon efforts to deny the existence of global warming and peak oil.
it's just too damn bad that aumann is being hoisted with his own game theory petard, as the actions of AEI/CERA/PNAC/exxon/israel are revealing an awareness of peak oil and global warming, which were their motives to stage 9/11.
now then. if this theory is haywire, it would behoove the israelis, israeli americans, their exxon allies, and their deathwish christian and corporate fascist fellow travelers to quit acting as if it were NOT haywire.
we can see from aumann's game theories why it's so important to control the flow of information...
Sure. And one way to control information flow is to flood the world with lots of disinformation. So you can't believe anything unless you know who it's from and that it's somebody you trust. And more than that, it has to be somebody you trust is smart enough not to pass on disinformation they got somewhere else.
Israel, the israeli americans, exxon and their fellow travelers knew about peak oil and global warming long before 9/11, and they had to respond to peak oil and global warming before peak oil and global warming became obvious.
EVERYBODY who thinks about it knows about peak oil. I first read about it in an ecology book that was published in 1955. All that's uncertain is the date. Everybody knows it's coming but they don't know quite how fast. As we explore for harder-to-reach oil, the exploration itself becomes more expensive and the payoffs gradually less....
As the oil industry gets more consolidated and the cost of exploration goes up, we can expect exploration rates to become easier to moderate assuming the oil companies want to find less. So it becomes easier to make it look like peak oil has come early, if it's still in the future.
On the other side of things, foreign nations are probably overestimating their reserves. We tend to think that doesn't happen much in the USA because a company that announces reserves that aren't there boosts its stock price and then when it's found out the executives can go to jail. On the other side they have an incentive to announce their finds and boost their stock prices. But some national governments have a strong incentive to claim reserves they don't actually have.
So the Bush administration was talking about how iraq was going to be a paradise and we could fund the entire invasion from oil profits. If we could have increased the pumping rate and brought lots of money into iraq that spilled over to the public, lots of jobs, lots of money, so different from sanctions ... they weren't worried about an insurgency. But then they won the war and holed up in the Oil Ministry and looked at the records, and all of a sudden Bush was saying it was going to be a long war and he'd try to do it on the cheap. I think he looked at the oil records and found out Saddam had been lying about the reserves, that there wasn't enough proven reserves to justify a big effort at new drilling. We won and we got the booby prize.
Does anybody in the world really know about peak oil? Or is it a bunch of guys who each have part of the picture who lie to each other?
...all of which accounts for the AEI/CERA/exxon efforts to deny the existence of global warming and peak oil.
These are guys who don't need to know anything to lie. They'll say whatever is most useful to them completely independent of any truth they might know.
how exxon got signed up with the PNAC plan
• 60s--- exxon explores for uranium
• 1969--- exxon establishes Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc, goes whole hog on startup, 200 million spent, billions planned
• 1970--- american oil production peaks. how far back did exxon see this coming?
• 1979--- film "the china syndrome" debuts 12 days before three mile island
• 1979--- three mile island meltdown, israeli american media hysteria, no casualties
• 1979-1981--- lee raymond president of Exxon Nuclear ...three mile island damage control?
• 1983--- merle streep as karen silkwood, assisted by director mike nichols and producer norah ephron, demonstrates how evil the nuke industry is.
• 1986--- chernobyl. sabotage? 60 deaths, more israeli american media hysteria, chernobyl contributes to disintegration of soviet union, and the collapse of the soviet union paves the way for israeli russians' takeover russian energy
• 1986--- exxon dumps Exxon Nuclear a few months after chernobyl
• 1993--- lee raymond was named chairman and chief executive officer of Exxon Corporation
• 1997--- PNAC founded by radical israeli americans of the AEI (american enterprise institute), kristol and kagan, at neocon central, 1150 17th St NW, washington dc, home of the AEI and bill kristol's weekly standard, the neocons' flagship publication.
• 1998--- exxon overtly signs on with the israeli americans. the primary israeli american think tank, the AEI (american enterprise institute) has received $1,870,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998
• 2000--- the israeli american plan surfaces at PNAC ---a spinoff of the AEI----noting the need for "a new pearl harbor" to stimulate support for an israeli american project to grab control of middle east/central asian energy deposits and transport routes.
PNAC member cheney's behavior is inconsistent...
he acknowledged peak oil in 1999, and in may 2001, after he was installed as vice president, called for 1300 to 1900 new nuke plants in america.
...but when he finally realized the israeli americans were running things and were opposed to nuclear power plants, saw that exxon had knuckled under, and saw israeli americans had a plan (the PNAC 9/11 operation), he abandoned his calls for more nuke power and quit talking about peak oil.
• 2001--- israeli russians ---yukos oil oligarchs and others--- were still in control of russian energy, thus ensuring oil supplies to israeli america once israeli americans begin tearing up the middle east oil patch in their project to rearrange the middle east to israeli spec...
exxon, shortly after 9/11, signs the sakhalin deal with russia, scheduled to become the largest foreign investment ever in russia.... but the handwriting was on the wall as gusinsky, the israeli russian media oligarch, had already been purged, and had fled to israel.
...this handwriting, pointing to eventual expulsion of the yukos oligarchs and other israeli russian gangsters, contributed to the urgency of getting the 9/11 project underway, in hopes of generating enough sympathy that putin would allow israeli russians to remain in control of russian energy
• 2002--- lee raymond, CEO of exxon, named vice-chairman of the AEI’s board of trustees.
• 2003--- khodorkovsky, the israeli russian boss of yukos, attempts to sell yukos to exxon, then run by CEO lee raymond ---the same lee raymond who became the vice-chairman of the board of the israeli american AEI think tank in 2002... the same lee raymond who took over Exxon Nuclear during the three mile island crisis in 1979
• 2003--- iraq shocked and awed... lies about iraq wmds, promoted by the AEI, PNAC and the israeli american media, serve as pretext
• by the end of 2004, the yukos oil oligarchs, media oligarch gusinsky and berezovsky were purged (most of them fleeing to israel), causing howls of outrage from the israeli american press and neocons like richard perle--- who is probably one of the masterminds of the whole dismal 9-11/PNAC project...
and so the israelis and israeli americans would have to proceed with the PNAC project without guarantees of russian oil supplies in the event oil production was disrupted as the middle east was remodeled.
• 2005--- raymond retires from exxon with a $400 million dollar golden parachute (a bonus for his help in setting up the invasion of iraq?) and slides into his position as head of the National Petroleum Council in October of 2006.
• 2009, february--- lee raymond has lately disappeared from the AEI, and his disappearance may be an indication that the AEI is feeling some heat for its role in lying us into the PNAC oil acquisition project, not to mention the dawning suspicion that the AEI/PNAC outfit had something to do with staging 9/11.
if peak oil is bogus, how come oil production's been flat (table 1.1d) since 2005, despite a doubling of the number of drills (since january 2002), and a seven-fold increase in price?
if there's so much oil, why are oil companies drilling hundreds of miles offshore, in two miles of water and two more miles of dirt under that, and spending hundreds of millions of dollars per well to find such piddling amounts of oil in such inconvenient, expensive places?
MOTIVES: security for israel, oil for exxon: US taxpayers foot the bill
it's no secret that the israelis have been pushing for reassembly of the middle east for decades, and it seems reasonable to assume that israel ---located as it is adjacent to the world's biggest oil patch--- would not be nearly as important to america if america were not so dependent on oil.... for instance, if america was supplying itself with electricity from nuke plants built and operated by exxon, fueled with uranium from exxon mines.
once exxon became aware of israeli americans' determination to thwart development of nuke plants, once exxon became aware of the power of the israeli american media, once exxon became aware of israeli and israeli american determination to remodel the middle east, exxon gave up on their nukes and joined up with the israeli americans in their land and oil acquisition project.
since the american taxpayer would be footing the bill for the project ---at a time when oil is getting scarce and exploration and production costs are soaring--- an alliance with the israeli americans and their PNAC project is the cheapest way for exxon to grab a chunk of the biggest oil reserves in the world.
...not to mention the inconvenient fact that israel must be secured before their american protector runs out of gas and collapses from being looted by oligarchs who see the peak oil handwriting on the wall.
US taxpayers foot the bill
Israel is a client State, plays a role and deserves to be paid for her role. I suggest you look deeper into the Balance of Payments on the Income side. I see no reason taxpayers should complain about the payment for Israel's role. If the role they play doesn't pay-back it is not the fault of Israel, it is the fault of the US.
But if you think that the State is misled by the IL, that is another issue Prof. Walt is dealing with;->
If you ask me this is still the fault of the State. Because the State structure is useless as I keep exposing;->
Grand Sen~or.
crash: looting or obscuring peak oil...? ...or both?
"No, the global depression was not started to keep people from seeing that peak oil was the motivation for 9/11."
.
isnt it nice that professional money people who surely knew better had lent trillions of dollars to marginal borrowers, packaged those loans, and peddled those packages of bad debt to anyone addled enough to buy them... the result being, a mechanism was in place to crash the global economy, thus crashing the demand for oil, thus obscuring the fact the oil production had peaked, thus obscuring the motive for staging 9/11...
...not to mention the predators that have defaulted to loot mode in anticipation of oil shortages crippling america.
.
why was ditech hammering us 24/7 for years, trying to get us to borrow 125% of the value of the house we were using as collateral?
the crook that founded ditech in 1995 sold out to GMAC in 1999, which gave GMAC time enough to put together an ad campaign that convinced everyone that had a shred of equity in their shack that they should cash that equity in so they could charge more on their credit cards... the "convincing" to be accomplished by dint of non-stop 24/7 advertising on every commercial television outlet in america.
it also comes as no surprise to learn that goldman sachs, known for their creative use of derivatives, is in this caper up to their eyeballs, including manipulating the price of gasoline to help re-elect its front man, our noble and heroic ex-president, crusader bunnypants.
...and it comes as no surprise that goldman sachs becomes a partner with GM in the ditech operation in august of 2005.
...and as that fat little **** in the television commercials kept losing more and more refi jobs to ditech, greenspan was relentlessly lowering interest rates, which of course made the whole scam possible.
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Federal Open Market Committee voted to reduce the federal funds rate from 3.5% to 3.0%.[50] Then, after the accounting scandals of 2002, the Fed dropped the federal funds rate from then current 1.25% to 1.00%.[51] Greenspan acknowledged that this drop in rates would have the effect of leading to a surge in home sales and refinancing.
alan greenspan wikipedia
so even wikipedia has to acknowledge the timeline.
and as the housing prices sink farther (as per another greenspan prediction) we can expect goldman sachs and cohorts to take advantage of the low prices, and wind up owning whatever's left of america.
...this as demand for oil falls to the point that peak oil wont become a factor for years, possibly decades, which brings us to the whole purpose of the caper: crash the economy to disguise the fact that peak oil was the motive we did a "new pearl harbor" on ourselves on 9/11...
...as per PNAC's wishes...
and now we're the "benevolent global hegemon" whose benevolence has already killed a million people, and the Project for the New American Century is just getting started.
.
...unless, of course, this whole PNAC scheme is nothing more than cover for the looting operation.
Professor you are talking so sweet...
Professor, you are talking so sweet but not so realistic. Remember you were trying to naturalize the US - Israel relations. Why don't you do the same with Iran and try to naturalize the US - Iran and Israel - Iran relations that is what I would expect from a state bound realist;->But then of course this is something like saying "Why don't you naturalize the US - Israel and Israel - Palestinian relations first". That would be a good exercise before the other;-> I also think that the IL should talk directly to Iranians, I mean eventually they will be the policy makers, so why waste time with middle-men;->>
You and I know Iran conceives Israel being a loose client of the US as a nuclear threat more than the US. So, why don't you build your realistic approach to Iran on that?
I am just watching Mate - how many states you are going to save around there;->>
Grand Sen~or.
...when a little nuts and bolts reality creeps into the ivory towers.
eed, we are reportedly engaged in various covert operations there already. Iranians can see that Saddam Hussein is dead and buried but Kim Jong Il is not, and they know one of the reasons why.
There is that, but keep in mind that paranoia among the top leadership goes both farther and deeper than that in Iran; the above only furthers it beyond what it already was. That is a very steep hill of distrust to climb, and I'm not at all convinced that the costs would be worth it.
But imagine how we might react a decade hence, if we knew that Iran had built a few nuclear weapons and some terrorist group whose agenda was somewhat similar to Iran's managed to explode a bomb somewhere in the world, or even on American soil?
Building a suitcase nuke (which is what I'm assuming you are referring to) is rather difficult. It takes much more advanced nuclear weapons technology than Iran has, and they'd have to get it from someone else or develop it on their own (which would take time).
Nuclear forensics is hardly perfect (or so my physicist colleagues tell me) and the United States has been known to shoot first and ask questions later in the past.
I've read, though, that they are generally pretty good at tracing the plutonium and uranium used back to the reactor it was enriched/made in.
So Iran should not be confident that we'd act with precision and restraint in the aftermath of a nuclear terrorist attack, and that concern ought to give them pause about whether joining the nuclear weapons club is a net plus.
Think about it from their cost-benefit-analysis perspective. Perceived immunity to US military threat and an instant audience among anyone in range (not to mention greater freedom to pursue their non-military efforts in the Middle East) in the next 5-15 years, versus the possible chance that they'll be incinerated if some terrorist group gets a suitcase nuke (unlikely), manages to detonate it in a US city or other major city (unlikely), and then the assumption runs back to Iran. The nukes sounds like a much better idea.
I'd also point out to them that acquiring nuclear weapons will encourage other states in the Middle East to follow suit.
All that means is that they'd be deterred from a conventional invasion of a neighboring Arab state. It wouldn't change the sense of security from US military threat that they'd feel, nor would it affect their unconventional efforts (like sponsoring Hezbollah and Hamas).
it should prefer to confine the competition there to the conventional realm,
Only among the Arab states, seeing as how Israel already has nukes. Moreover, none of the effects of this size would change with nukes on their part for the worse, aside from the weakened ability to mount a conventional threat.
They also know that Muammar al-Qaddafi agreed to give up his own WMD programs only after the Bush administration agreed not to try to overthrow him.
True, but that came at the end of a long process of reconciliation started by the European Union states back in the 1990s.
Thus, from a purely realist perspective, Iran might actually be better off with the "Japan option": possessing the latent capability to build nuclear weapons if circumstances required, but avoiding the costs and risks by refraining from exercising that option.
The only problem is that while Japan doesn't actually build nuclear weapons, they don't really need to; they're under the security envelope of the US. The same condition does not apply to Iran, which (as I mentioned) has a leadership that is deeply suspicious of the US and other possible threats to their regime survival.
I'm not going to panic if it does cross that line at some point down the road. And neither should anyone else.
I'm not panicking either. What it does mean, though, is that they'll have more freedom to do their usual stuff in the Middle East, and more leverage over their arab neighbors (at least until they get nukes). Not to mention, of course, that it will freak the fuck right out of the Israelis.
Professor I have a question please
What happens if Israel attacks Iran using WMD to protect her national interest, like she attacked Gazza?
Do the US has some sort of missile shield to intercept such an attack considering it as an act against the national interest of the US? You know the US and the EU have more national intersts than Israel to keep the stability around that region. I mean given the SATFP State can do funny things to protect their national interest, isn't it?
Remember some of the axioms of the SATFP:
7. A State can take deterrent action against other State(s) if the Leadership of the State decides so. (see axiom 11 & 12).
8. A State seeks to increase her national interests when her existence is threatened.
9. A State's power is a potential threat to other states. A state is by definition paranoid of other states.
I mean I don't want to trigger some sort of paranoia. but I was thinking this is already part of the nature of State;->>
I am just wondering how come that doesn't bother you at all, You can imagine Iran attacking to the European countries and trying to install missile-shields for them. but now I am thinking may be the US Navy is in charge for such un-expected situations, maybe in the Gulf you can intercept such stray shots, is that it?!;->>
BTW, you were talking about sticks;-> can you imagine a bigger stick than a WMD ?;->>
I can;->>
Grand Sen~or,
Why are you assuming that Iran is set on a nuclear weapons programme? Where is the evidence that they want any more than the Japanese option? They are entitled to it by treaty and it serves all their purposes. If Stephen Walt is inbibing neocon talking points because they have been repeated enough then it is a sad day.
The thing to do is to pusuade them to give up mastery of the fuel cycle--it is far too expensive, destabilising and doesn't really make sense (to them or anyone else). But we (US, Britain and France and Germany) will have to acknowledge their entitlement to it and negotiate accordingly.
The basis of suspicion is in the article`
That is that Iran has not taken the offers to confirm that it is seeking solely a nuclear power program.
It ignores international skepticism, and continues enrichment research beyond the level of nuclear power needs.
SHort of giving up its enrichment program, Iran has done everythign it can to prove that the program is not intended to make nukes, including suspending enrichment for 2 years and implementing the Additional Protocol, and at each step the goalposts were moved and yet more demands for concessions made on Iran. Iran has made numerous offers (endorsed by the IAEA and even US experts) that would address any serious and legitimate claims about nuclear weapons proliferation, only to see the offers ignored.
Read up http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php
will elbaradei's successor be more cooperative?
if there was any proof of iran's intentions of pursuing nuclear weapons...
but there's no proof, is there...? ...other than evidence on a laptop computer that was probably planted by the same people who fabricated evidence of iraq's WMDs.
if that laptop data is so convincing, how come it cant be passed to elbaradei so he can bust the iranians for violating the NPT?
it's quite wonderful that elbaradei has never been able to find any evidence at all of iran's nuke weapons program... so elbaradei is being blixed.
elbaradei's gonna retire soon... surely israeli america has enough juice to ensure his successor will be more cooperative in providing pretexts for expanding the neocon wars.
if you guys have enough juice to make it stick, so be it.
but how many times are we expected to fall for the same lame trick?
Is it a crime to ignore "International" (read: USA+Israel) __skepticism__?
I think USA should ask Israel to get rid of its nukes first since Israel has disobeyed 70+ UN resolutions.
No Justice == No peace.
Its just provocative.
If Iran had offered acceptance of Israel, IF (an achievable conditional acceptance), and if it had not encouraged proxy militias on three frontiers (Lebanon, Gaza primarily, West Bank secondarily); then its word would be taken differently.
The letter of the law would convince that the spirit of the law would be upheld.
Iran is better than Israel since it is a member of NPT
...and Israel has attacked 3 of its neighbors in 3 years: Lebabnon, Syria, and Gaza (the latter being its own concentration camp).
At least Iran is a member of NPT and does not have nukes.
Why should Iran accept Israel? Iran didn't accept apartheid S. Africa either, much to its credit.
Iran has not taken the offers to confirm that it is seeking solely a nuclear power program.
They have reason to be suspicious that if they let inspectors get GPS coordinates for their nuclear power program the sites would be bombed.
So for example the israelis bombed the iraqi Osirak civilian nuclear plant. There is considerable evidence that it could not have been useful toward bomb-making, but it was an election year in israel. The israelis made such a big deal about how easy it would be for iraq to make nukes that Saddam (whose bomb-making program to that point had centered around university professors dabbling in research) increased the program's budget 700%.
Oh! What if Obama personally promised that he would make sure those sites did not get bombed unless the inspectors decided they were for bomb-making. Do you suppose the iranians might let them be inspected in that case? Would there be anything to lose by Obama making such a promise?
The thing to do is to pusuade them to give up mastery of the fuel cycle--it is far too expensive, destabilising and doesn't really make sense (to them or anyone else).
First, it isn't very expensive. The traditional path is to start with U235 reactors, which are expensive. Use those to make plutonium and then build cheap plutonium reactors. They can then phase out the expensive U235 process. They mine their own uranium, turn all of it into plutonium, and use that for power. Far cheaper than the alternative and all of it is under their own control.
It simply does not make sense for them to use an expensive alternative that gives foreigners control of their electric power. That is a ridiculous alternative for them, and the only reason they would consider it is that we threaten them.
It is a prospect, though strained, that the US might establish a "talk first, shoot only at last resort" relationship with Iran.
It is NOT a prospect, without a radical change in Iranian foreign policy, for Israel to do so.
Richard Wittyq, the USA should make it clear that we will not tolerate irresponsible cowboy behavior from israel.
We must make the israelis understand that if they prematurely nuke iran we will tell the world that we are displeased with them and we will delay our aid to them by several weeks or maybe even a couple of months.
We will tell the world that while of course opinions differ, we think the israelis were mistaken to nuke iran and we would prefer that they not do it again unless they actually have evidence that it would be useful.
Make Middle East a Nuclear-Free Zone.
Iran wants nuclear weapons ambiguity for the same reason that Israel does -- deterrence.
Want Iran to suspend it course? Ask Israel to get rid of its 200 nukes.
Make the entire Middle East nuclear free.
We (USA plus Israel) do not want deterrence -- they want compellence -- the ability to dictate the course of actions in the middle east.
Too bad. We will have to learn to compromise.
Please read this by the national defense university in DC:
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/mcnair/mcnair69/McNairPDF.pdf
Dr Walt should know better. Actually, the Iranians have already offered to place additional restrictions on their nuclear fuel cycle in excess of their legal obligations to ensure that it cannot even theoretically be used to make bombs - for example, by opening the program to multinational participation, foregoing plutonium reprocessing, allowing more inspections than the NPT requires, etc. Iran's amb to the UN Javad Zarif listed these offers in an editorial in the IHT: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/05/opinion/edzarif.php
ALl of these offers were totally ignored by the US which instead insists that Iran must be deprived of uranium enrichment. Why? Because this conflict isn't about weapons proliferation at all, it is about an on-going conflict between developed and developing nations in controlling the nuclear fuel cycle, the sole source of energy for the near future.
from my colleagues, William Luers, Thomas R. Pickering, and Jim Walsh:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22271
"Setting aside recent, misleading reports that Iran already has enough nuclear fuel to build a weapon, the reality is that Tehran now has five thousand centrifuges for enriching uranium and is steadily moving toward achieving the capability to build nuclear bombs.[2] Having the capacity to build a nuclear weapon is not the same thing as having one, and having a large stock of low-enriched uranium is not the same as having the highly enriched uranium necessary for a bomb...."
esp:
"...News reports and some commentators have recently claimed that Iran has enough material for a nuclear weapon. These reports referred to Iran's stock of low-enriched uranium. This is a misleading claim. To begin with, one cannot make a nuclear weapon with low-enriched uranium. A nuclear weapon requires highly enriched uranium or plutonium, and Iran possesses neither. In theory, Iran could take its stock of low-enriched uranium and enrich it to a grade required for making bombs, but its low-enriched uranium is currently under the surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Diverting this material for military purposes would be discovered by the IAEA. (Detection of diversion is the IAEA's technological strong suit.) Iran's choices, therefore, are to cheat and get caught or to kick out the inspectors. Either action would represent an extreme departure from Iranian strategy to date and in any case would likely precipitate military action by Israel."
Other countries that have recently obtained the same "capacity" to build nuclear bombs include Argentina and Brazil (both of which have a history of actually seeking nukes, and have not implemented the same transparency as Iran to IAEA inspections) and many more will be joining that list as more countries come to rely on nuclear power. This conflict is not about nukes -- it is about who gets to monopolize the nuclear fuel cycle technology, the sole energy source of the future:
"Almost all the new and prospective entrants in the enrichment business appear anxious to establish their credentials as having existing technology in place. Driving this process, in part, is the perception that all countries will soon be divided into uranium enrichment "haves" (suppliers) and "have-nots" (customers) under various proposals to establish multinational nuclear fuel centers and fuel-supply arrangements."
- Lining up to enrich Uranium, International Herald Tribune, Sept 12 2006.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
(97)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE