Is Anyone Surprised That Happened?

On February 29^th North Korea announced it would suspend nuclear weapons tests and uranium enrichment, as well as allow inspectors to monitor its main nuclear facility.  In turn United States agreed to give the county tons of desperately needed food aid.

Approximately one minute after its Friday the 13^th launch, North Korea’s Kwangmyongsong (Bright Shining Light) exploded, with debris falling back to earth and landing in the Yellow Sea.  Amidst the post-launch hype of North Korea’s failed “weather satellite” the United States announced it will suspend food aid shipments and Russia, China, and India agreed that the attempted launch violated UNSC sanctions.  Of course South Korea and Japan haven’t missed the opportunity to condemn North Korea for spending hundreds of millions of dollars developing this rocket while its citizens are impoverished and malnourished.

But was anyone really expecting this latest kerfuffle to play out any differently?  This was North Korea’s 3^rd failed “satellite” launch, though it is the first they have admitted to the North Korean public.  (North Koreans are told that the other two satellites were launched into space and are broadcasting songs and information to the rest of the world.)  North Korea has also preformed two nuclear weapons tests in 2006 and 2009, and numerous long range missile tests.  All of these are in violation of UNSC sanctions and prompted condemnation and the freezing of foreign aid. 

Every time the North Korean government has suckered the international community into sending them food aid, they have subsequently reneged on their side of the deal or otherwise violated international sanctions, prompting foreign aid to freeze. 

The Cartoon of the Week for April 13, 2012 sums my sentiments up pretty well, or at least the look on the face of the reporter in the bottom right of the image. 

Why Do We Keep Setting Ourselves Up For Disappointment?

This time I believe it was primarily because this was the first such agreement with North Korea under the rule of Kim Jong-Un.  International leaders simply couldn’t refuse the chance to kick the tires on the new leader, hoping that his upbringing in Switzerland, as opposed to in North Korea under his father, would mean the apple did in fact fall very far from the tree.  Hindsight being 20/20, that wishful thinking proved nothing more than a dream. 

Is There a Right Answer?

Two years from now when North Korea comes back to the table promising to freeze its nuclear weapons program and stop testing missiles in exchange for food aid, what should we do?  Should we refuse, knowing they weren’t going to hold up their end anyway?   Or should we agree, and console ourselves with the fact that we saved thousands of North Koreans from starvation. 

By agreeing to North Korea’s deals we are continuing down the same path of appeasement, which has proven useless in persuading North Korean leaders to abandon their nuclear weapon and missile programs.  Unfortunately the facts on the ground mean refusing to send North Korea food aid will result in North Korean children going hungry, and dying from starvation. 

Clearly the root problem is North Korean leadership, which would rather spend $200 million on a missile instead of spending the money on planting crops.  But sanctions with proving ineffective at influencing North Korean policies, what other options are there for the world to exert soft power over North Korean leadership? 

Again, the reality of the situation is that while North Korea has nuclear weapons pointed at Seoul and Tokyo there is little the world can do to strong arm Pyongyang, worst of all, they know that.   

Romney's Plan for Dealing With Iran is Great... Its Also Not His Plan

Mitt Romney recently wrote an Op-Ed in the Washington Post describing how he would handle Iran compared to Obama.  To sum up, Romney starts with a few ice breakers; Spetember 11^th was bad, terrorism is scary, and Iran wants to destroy Israel.  He then progresses to slightly more constructive content by stating that while Obama says we need to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, “his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy.”  Romney then presents how he would deal with Iran. 

“I will press for ever-tightening sanctions, acting with other countries if we can but alone if we must.  I will speak out on behalf of the cause of democracy in Iran and support Iranian dissidents who are fighting for their freedom.  I will make clear that America’s commitment to Israel’s security and survival is absolute.”  Later in the Op-Ed Romney adds that he will maintain a strong naval presence in the Persian Gulf and stresses that he is willing to use military force if necessary. 

I think that plan sounds great.  It focuses on multilateral diplomatic and economic options and makes it clear to Iranian leadership that if these options fail the United States and its allies are willing and able to resort to a military option with the goal of eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and removing them from power.  There is only one problem… Romney’s proposed plan is actually Obama’s plan, and he has been doing it for nearly his entire Presidency.

Pressing for tight, multilateral sanctions:

The following list of international organizations and countries have imposed sanctions against Iran.  These range from freezing assets to prohibiting the import of Iranian oil. 

• The United Nations
• The European Union
• Australia
• Canada
• India
• Israel
• Japan
• South Korea
• Switzerland
• United States

Most of the sanctions have been imposed in the last 6 months, and have largely been a result of American diplomacy.  These sanctions have had a crippling effect on the Iranian economy.  Over the last 6 months the exchange rate of the Iranian Rial to U.S. Dollars has increased by 67%.  Additionally Iran’s own Parliament recently grilled Ahmadinejad over his handling of the economy and foreign policy. 

 

U.S. Support for Iranian Dissidents:

Last year Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called on Iranian opposition to seek international support, “as Libya rebels did.”  In the case of Libya, the Transitional National Council asked the international community to send aid and impose a no-fly-zone over Libya to protect civilians from aircraft loyal to Gaddafi.  Openly suggesting that a group of people should request military aide in their struggle against their government is a pretty strong sign that you support them. 

American Commitment to Israel:

Romney cites this write up of a recent Oval Office meeting between Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama as an example that Obama’s, “rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy.” Interesting that same article goes on to quote Netanyahu as saying, “Americans know that Israel and the United States share common values, that we defend common interests, that we face common enemies. Iran’s leaders know that, too. For them, you’re the Great Satan, we’re the Little Satan. For them, we are you, and you’re us.”  The article continues to cite Obama’s address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as saying U.S. military aid to Israel has increased each year of his Presidency. 

Regional Naval Presence:

To say the United States doesn’t have a regional naval presence is simply ridiculous.  Not only has the U.S. Navy been conducting numerous anti-piracy operations in the Persian Gulf, but the Fifth Fleet is stationed in Bahrain, 100 miles from Iran. 

Romney’s Next Moves:

It is pretty clear that President Obama has already done everything Romney said he would do.  So do that make Romney a Democrat, Obama a Republican, or does it mean a good idea has no political alliance?

March Madness

Foreign Policy March Madness

Make Your Own Bracket.

My Bracket.

A write up of last year’s tournament is available here.  Check it out to better understand the style of my own tournament analysis. 

Matchups to Watch:

India v. Brazil:  Last year these emerging heavyweights met in a thrilling Elite 8 match-up from which Brazil’s Rousseff progressed to the Final Four to face Obama.  Both BRICS Nations are on top of their game but this year the edge goes to Singh.  India is working to become the only nation to become a permanent member of the UNSC since the inception of the United Nations; and that will carry them through this tough first round matchup. 

Obama v. Netanyahu:  President Obama was able to control the backboard and get a win over Netanyahu in a home court match up earlier this month.  That said, The Oval Office is probably the second friendliest gym for Israel play in, and at a truly neutral site Obama will win handily.

Players to Watch:

Castro Brothers: Or in this case it is, “players not to watch.”  Cuba wasn’t invited to America’s Summit… and they made THIS tourney?!?!  This is an easy win for Robert Mugabe. 

Putin: Vladi is running down hill after a decisive “victory” in the recent Russian Presidential election and some strong diplomacy regarding Syria and Iran.  He isn’t unstoppable, but this is his tournament to lose. 

Kim Jong Un: The new leader of North Korea is close to securing tons of food aid from the United States by promising to freeze its nuclear weapon program.  Lil’ Kim’s father would be proud to see his son exploiting the United States for free food while only briefly pausing North Korea’s nuclear program.  Unfortunately for Kim his road to the Final Four is through Tehran, and that is a level of crazy this young leader can’t play at yet. 

Note: North Korean defectors interviewed in April 2011 thought the tournament was a Battle Royale among foreign leaders fighting for the favor of Kim Jong Il, who once brought a knife to a gun fight and won. 

Late Tournament Action:

Game # 30, Putin v. Ahmadinejad: These two met in the semi finals last year but this will not be a repeat.  Despite a strong performance by the KGB veteran in the early rounds, Putin’s age has caught up to him.  Strong fundamentals can only make up for so much, and in this game the 20 minute half time didn’t give the Russia bear enough time for the hibernation he needed.  Ahmadinejad pulls ahead in the late third quarter and doesn’t look back as he advances to his first finals appearance.  

Finals, Obama v. Ahmadinejad: No one doubted that Obama would make it to this game.  Despite a tough Elite 8 matchup against Angela Merkel (Who has been bench pressing the European economy for training) his tried and true Hope play won in the end.  In the semi finals Obama looked casual against Singh of India as he spoke confidently and inspirationally about great things; propelling him to a second consecutive tournament championship game, the first leader to do so in the two year history of the tournament.

The Game: With a disregard for his citizens that would have made Stalin blush, Ahmadinejad refused once and for all to freeze Iran’s nuclear program.  Although he didn’t, “hesitate to use force,” Obama was beaten to the first punch by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who swooped down from the rafters shouting, “I will never allow my people to live in the shadow of annihilation!”  When the dust had settled the bewildered officials and President Obama beheld a triumphant Netanyahu, posed like Washington crossing the Delaware, over his vanquished advisory. 

After a lengthy discussion and numerous calls to the review booth (manned by Kofi Annan) the officials declare Netanyahu the 2012 March Madness Champion.  With reelection less than eight months away Obama humbly accepts the decision of the officials, and the financial and political support of AIPAC on account of his unprecedented support of Israel.  

A Response to Karl Rove’s, “How to Beat Obama”

Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie recently wrote an article asserting that the Republican nominee should challenge President Obama on foreign policy to expose how weak he actually is on the subject.  When I first saw this article my plan was to make this the first addition to the Election 2012 page of my blog.  However as I read it I couldn't help but formulate a response to some of Mr. Rove’s assertions and suggestions. 

My Problems with the Article:

American Exceptionalism:

The belief that because the United States has the biggest economy, strongest military, etc… it is exempt from the rules and guidelines of international conduct is flawed.  Nations should not roam the world with a ‘because I can’ attitude, taking unilateral action against the expressed will of the international community.  In an environment where no party has a monopoly on the use of force (and would therefore be responsible for enforcing law and order) the rules of international conduct are merely guidelines for determining personal action.  This means they are only as strong and respect each nation holds for them.

With regards to the role of global policeman that the United States so often plays, this work is both legitimized and enhanced by partnerships with regional organizations like the African Union and Arab League.  In the case of Libya, NATO military action was legitimized by the involvement of Arab nations like the U.A.E.  In Central Africa, President Obama sent 100 U.S. troops to Uganda, South Sudan, C.A.R. and the D.R.C.  These soldiers will work with the African Nations to defeat the Lord’s Resistance Army, which has been raping, murdering, and kidnapping for over 20 years. 

In essence, with great power comes great responsibility.  Part of that responsibility is being humble, saying thank you, and quietly going about your business of being the best.  A perfect example of this is the rescue of Iranian sailors being held captive by Somali pirates.  In the wake of each rescue the Navy has fed, clothed, and treated the sailors for any medical needs before quickly returning them to the Iranian Coast Guard.  There were never any attempts to use the sailors as leverage to influence Iranian nuclear policies, or any other disrespectful treatment of the sailors.  The only publicity these rescues have gotten is a quick story on the major news outlets and an official Navy report on the event.  By handling these events in this manner the United States portrayed itself as acting solely in the best interest of the Iranian sailors and making no attempt to exploit the situation to influence Iranian policy. As a result the United States gained the moral high ground, and with it, the support of many countries in opposing Iranian nuclear policies.    

As much as I believe American Exceptionalism is a flawed philosophy, toting it is proven help win the general election.  So Mr. Rove’s advice to the Republican Nominee is sound.  

Iran Didn’t “pose a serious threat” in 2008:

Why Mr. Rove, was it so foolish for then Senator Obama to say Iran doesn’t, “pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union did.”  In 2008 Iran had zero nuclear weapons, and as we can clearly see now, Iran wasn’t even four years away from developing them.  Furthermore the USSR could have, at any moment, blanketed the entire U.S. with nuclear missiles.  Even if Iran had enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear warhead, they have no way to get it to the United States.  (No, you can’t simply smuggle a nuclear device into the U.S.) I’ll conclude this section by saying how foolish it was for the Bush Administration to think Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States in 2002. 

Radical Islamic Terrorism:

Karl Rove begins this section by asserting that the Republican nominee must make victory over, “radical Islamic terrorism” the top priority of the nation.  He then suggests that President Obama stops short of this by merely seeking to “delegitimize the use of terrorism and to isolate those who carry it out.” (pg 20) Mr. Rove is quoting Obama’s May 2010 National Security Strategy.  Interestingly after this quote the National Security Strategy makes a clear distinction that the United States is not at war with terrorism or Islam, but al-Qa’ida and its affiliates.  Mr. Rove does not make a similar distinction. 

Another shortcoming of Mr. Rove’s article is it fails to list development as a tool to counter the spread of radical terrorism.  As this study from RAND finds, “social and economic development policies can weaken local support for terrorist activities.” (pg x) In impoverished areas many terrorist organizations offer recruits and their families’ financial support which cannot be found elsewhere.  Good economic development policies serve as a peaceful and more profitable means for these young men and women to support a family. 

The example offered by the RAND study is of development projects in the southern Philippines growing asparagus and bananas.  These initiatives offered an economic alternative to communities which previously supported local terrorist groups.  As a result of these programs communities had high employment rates and were transformed into peaceful communities. 

Such development projects show the commitment of the government enacting them to the welfare of the program beneficiaries.  This serves to minimize the grievances and contempt which can cause individuals to view terrorism is a viable response. 

Conversely, President Obama’s 2010 National Security Strategy explicitly outlines the role of development programs, stating, “The Federal Government will invest in intelligence to understand this threat [radicalization] and expand community engagement and development programs to empower local communities.” (pg 19)  This policy shows the Obama Administration has a solid understanding of the root causes of terrorism.  Based on this article the same cannot be said of Mr. Rove.  

Osama bin Laden:

Karl Rove closes by predicting President Obama will repeat, “endlessly” that bin Laden was killed during his watch so much so that, “some voters will wonder whether the president himself personally delivered the kill shot.”  I’ll restrain myself from starting a tally of what the President credits to whom and simply refer readers to President Obama’s May 2nd speech to the Nation announcing that Osama bin Laden is dead.

NOTE: After writing this piece I found a response from Jermey Rosner and Stanley Greenberg to Mr. Rove’s article.  To summarize, they also assert that Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie have poor advice for the republican nominee and that not only do Americans think Obama is good on foreign policy (An assertion Mr. Rove makes), but he actually is.  

Paradise Lost

Before I dive into the meat and potatoes of this post I want to explain why I titled it Paradise Lost.  My working title was Trouble in Paradise, but that was the headline for this story in many of the major news outlets and I wanted to set this analysis apart from the crowd.  I settled on Paradise Lost in reference to John Milton’s 1667 poem by the same name.  The poem concerns the Biblical story of the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.  In Milton’s own words the purpose of the poem is to, “justify the ways of God to men.”  Admittedly that was where my knowledge of the work ended.  But after reading a synopsis or two I think an interesting comparison can be drawn between Satan tempting Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and Former President Nasheed exposing corruption in the Maldives.  In both stories Satan/Nasheed could have safely remained the ruler of their respective domains, but they chose to brave the abyss to show Adam and Eve/the world the truth about good and evil, rather than allow them to remain oblivious.  Of course their motivations for acting were very different so this is where my comparison ends. 

In December I posted a link to the Top 5 International Documentaries of 2011.  If you haven’t already I highly recommend checking them out, especially The Island President, the story of then President Mohamed Nasheed and his struggle to raise awareness of the dangers of global climate change.  This story is captivating for two reasons: the first is that in 2008 Nasheed became the first democratically elected President of the Maldives, a small island nation in the Indian Ocean.  The second reason is that for the Maldives climate change doesn’t just mean more powerful storms or extreme temperatures.  Rising sea levels threaten to submerge the nation (highest elevation is eight feet) beneath the waves of the Indian Ocean, literally erasing it from the map. 

The reason I say “then President” is on February 7^th Mr. Nasheed resigned from office.  He succinctly chronicles the events leading up to his resignation in an Op-Ed piece he submitted to the New York Times.  To summarize its contents, Mr. Nasheed asserts that he was forced out of office at gun point after cracking down on a corrupt judicial system and Islamist Extremists using the freedom of expression guaranteed by the new Constitution to spread hate and intolerance.    

In addition to his Op-Ed piece, Mr. Nasheed was recently interviewed by Christiane Amanpour.  In the interview Mr. Nasheed asserts that, “What happens in the Maldives happens in the Middle East always two or three years later.”  This assertion foreshadows a similar upheaval in Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt in 2014. 

Mr. Nasheed has been succeeded by his Vice President, Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik.  After taking office the new government issued a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Nasheed on unspecified criminal charges and began to rebuild the President’s cabinet with individuals who held high offices during Mr. Guyoom’s dictatorship.  Initially President Waheed said Presidential elections would be held as scheduled in October 2013, however he has recently changed his stance and said elections would be held, “as early as considered feasible by all concerned.”  This was further solidified by Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai who brokered an agreement between the two parties for early elections.

If the word of former President Nasheed is taken as the truth, this coup d’état represents a dangerous future for nations emerging from the Arab Spring with new governments.  However it is promising that both sides of this issue have thus far been able to work through their differences and agree on a course of action to resolve their dispute.  To quote current President Waheed Hassan, “this is an opportunity for us to regain the respect of the international community, but most importantly continue to build a safe, democratic, and prosperous Maldives for all our people.”  Clearly the truth of this statement can’t be over emphasized.


Assuming early elections are head in the next few months; the success of this brokered peace will be determined by how free and fair the election is, and the acceptance of the election results.  If the losing candidate and their supporters acknowledge that the election was free and fair, and that they accept their opponent as the peoples’ choice for President of the Maldives, than this will be a perfect case study for the peaceful resolution of contested Presidencies.  If however, civil unrest ensues or the election is not democratic, the Maldives would become the newest example of a country in chaos and unable to escape political strife.  

The Responsibility to Protect

It occurred to me that I have not raised as many morel and ethical questions as I set out to when I created this blog.  In continuing to analysis the crisis in Syria I think the justification given by Russia and China for their veto of a UN Resolution calling for President Assad to step down offers an excellent case study to consider the morality of intervening in the domestic affairs of a sovereign Nation. 

By design the UN Charter is not definitive on the issue.  In Chapter 1, Article 2(7) it states, “nothing should authorize intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” This definition is in line with the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), in which the concept of a state was established as the sole entity which can legally exert authority over a region.  Prior to this treaty Europe functioned in a state of nature, in which whatever government could exert authority over a region was justified in doing so.  

However  in Chapter VII, Article 39 the UN Charter authorizes the Security Council to, "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Article 42 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."  Article 41 and 42 outline the necessity of exhausting non-violent options before taking, "action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security."  This ambiguity allows future leaders to decide on a case-by-case basis whether state sovereignty or international peace and security should take precedent.

In the case of the UN Resolution voted on this past Saturday (2/4/12) the United States, Great Britain, France, and ten other members of the Security Council voted in favor of the Resolution, believing the conditions in the Syrian crisis fall under Chapter VII.  Conversely China and Russia vetoed the resolution, arguing the crisis is a domestic matter and falls under Chapter I, Article 2.  While there is a case to be made for both arguments, every day spent deliberating means another day of violence and death.  Therefore we have a moral imperative to outline a set of principles which can serve to spur a prompt and unified response under the direction of Chapter I or Chapter VII accordingly. 

For the sake of keeping this analysis focused I will assume no one will contest a principle stating in a case of blatant State sponsored genocide the UNSC should be required to act in accordance with Chapter VII.  Conversely a peaceful gathering of people protesting higher taxes doesn’t warrant the violation of a State’s sovereignty.  That said I will continue by analyzing the justifications given by the P5 members for their respective votes in an effort to highlight factors that would mandate UNSC action in accordance with Chapter I or Chapter VII. 

Why Russia vetoed:

On Monday (2/6/12) Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke in Moscow supporting his government’s veto of the resolution by arguing the resolution is one-sided against the Syrian government.  Mr. Lavrov justified this by citing the resolution as calling for the Syrian Government to end violent actions, without obligating groups opposing the regime (like the Free Syrian Army) to cease violent acts as well. 

Russia has opposed many of the sanctions and political efforts to isolate Syria, choosing instead to work with the Assad regime to try and impose a democratic transition.  This strategy was supported by arguing a sudden and violent change in Syria’s government would result in a volatile situation similar to that in Libya. 

Additionally, on Wednesday (2/8/12) Mr. Lavrov commented that both the Syrian regime and the opposition have instigated the armed conflict.  “On both sides there are people that aim at an armed confrontation, not a dialogue.”  Mr. Lavrov continued to say that President Assad wants his Vice President, Farouk al-Sharaa, to hold talks with opposition groups. 

Why China vetoed:

Like Russia, China has argued that it vetoed the UN Resolution to save lives and ensure stability in Syria.  According to Sun Zhe, international studies professors at Tsinghua University, Chinese officials view the actions of the Syrian Government as, “extremist”, but they do not want to see a repeat of Libya or Egypt. 

While the UNSC approved two resolutions in 2011 which authorized action, “by all means necessary” (Ivory Coast and Libya), it now seems that Russia and China are less comfortable with the idea of regime change.  For Russia this is because Syria is a close ally, and it therefore is inclined to stand by it.  For China these circumstances are slightly different.  For a Chinese perspective this resolution undoubtedly seems like an attempt by the UN to remove regimes which don’t agree with it.  This would be worrisome for China as doesn’t always agree with the opinion of the UN.

Britain, France, and the USA:

Conversely, the 13 members of the UNSC which voted for the resolution see Assad’s regime as a government which has been told stop, had sanctions imposed against it, and yet the violence persists.  After nearly a year of protests and death the only change has been Syria’s decent towards chaos.  In contradiction to Russia which is still trying to work with the President Assad to impose democratic reforms, Nations favoring the resolution believe the Syrian government has already shown its unwillingness change its behavior and policies and therefore intervention is the last resort. 

So where is the line between Chapter I and Chapter VII?  In December of 2001 the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) met and produced The Responsibility to Protect report.  In the introduction the report succinctly states that, “sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe – from mass murder and rape, from starvation – but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.” (VIII) It is important to notice how closely this statement echoes the language in Chapter I and Chapter VII of the UN Charter.  Where the ICISS takes the next, crucial, step is it doesn’t allow the responsibility to protect to disappear in a gray middle ground between Chapter I and Chapter VII.  Rather it clearly states that once the sovereign state is “unwilling or unable” to uphold this responsibility, it must be picked up by the international community. 

With this I believe Syria has clearly and unquestionably failed in its responsibility to protect its citizens.  Combined with the unwillingness of President Assad’s regime to work with the international community to stop the violence I further believe an intervention in Syria is not only justified, but is morally necessary.  While I can acknowledge why Russia and China would be against this intervention, I believe I have clearly negated any moral justification for their vetoes of the UN resolution.   

I would like to close by presenting the guidelines for military intervention from the ICISS’s The Responsibility to Protect Report.  I believe these are self-explanatory but if there readers feel these principles need more clarification I will provide it at a later date.

• Right Authority – Who authorizes military action. (ICISS 32)
• Just Cause – “What kind of harm is sufficient to trigger a military intervention overriding the non-intervention principle.” (ICISS 32) This is generally characterized by large scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing.
• Right Intention – “To halt or avert human suffering.” (ICISS 35)  Should always be established through multilateralism.
• Last Resort – There must be reasonable grounds to say no other option would work. (ICISS 36)
• Proportional Means – The scale and duration of operations should be minimally necessary to end human rights violations. (ICISS 37)
• Reasonable Prospects – Must have a reasonable chance of success, can’t make the conflict last larger. (ICISS 37)

Nucs, Sanctions, and the Strait of Hormuz

As per usual, I’ll start by setting the stage before engaging in a critical analysis.  I’ve composed a timeline to highlight some recent interactions between Iran, the United States, and the rest of the world.  Of course there are hundreds of other factors at work, but for the sake of time, space, and my sanity I’ve tried to list only the most pertinent factors. 

1/29/02: In his State of the Union Address George W. Bush names Iran as a member of the axis of evil, stating, “Iran aggressively pursues these weapons [of mass destruction] and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.” 

2010 & 2011: Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz become infected with the Stuxnet computer virus, causing the destruction of centrifuges used to enrich uranium.  Iran’s nuclear program, once on the brink of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear reaction, is set back years.

Dec 11: The United States Congress approves sanctions against Iran targeting its economic and financial sectors.

12/27/11: Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi declares, "not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz" if Western countries followed through with threats of escalating sanctions.    

1/3/12: Iran warns that the USS Stennis shouldn’t reenter the Persian Gulf.  “We recommend to the American warship that passed through the Strait of Hormuz and went to Gulf of Oman not to return to the Persian Gulf,” said Maj. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, the commander in chief of the army, as reported by Iran’s official news agency, IRNA. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will not repeat its warning.”

1/4/12: In a written statement Pentagon Press Secretary George Little states, "The deployment of US military assets in the Persian Gulf region will continue as it has for decades."

1/6/12: The European Union agrees in principle to impose sanctions against Iranian oil, although a final decision will not be made before February.

1/6/12: The USS Stennis carrier battle group rescues 13 Iranian fishermen from Somali pirates in the Gulf of Oman.  The fishermen had been held captive for 40 days. 

1/7/12: Iran’s Foreign Minister thanks the US for saving the fishermen, while the Fars news agency described the rescue as a “Hollywood-style act of showmanship.”

1/9/12: The IAEA confirms that Iran opened a new nuclear enrichment facility called Fordo, located under a mountain in Northern Iran.  

1/10/12: A US Coast Guard cutter rescues six Iranians after their ship, the Dhow, took on water in the Persian Gulf.  They were transferred to the Iranian coast guard vessel Naji 7 after the sailors were given food, water, and blankets.  In the written account of the incident Naval Forces Central Command quotes Hakim Hamid-Awi, owner of the Dhow, as telling his rescuers, “Without your help, we were dead. Thank you for all that you did for us.”  This was the fifth time in 14 months US Naval forces have come to the aid of Iranians in distress. 

1/11/12: An Iranian nuclear scientist is killed in a drive-by bombing in Tehran.  The official response of the Iranian Government states they will not be dissuaded from their pursuit of peaceful nuclear energy.  However Hossein Shariatmadari, general director of the Kayhan newspaper (appointed to the position by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), wrote an editorial emphasizing the need for Iran to retaliate against Israel, “These corrupted people are easily identifiable and readily within our reach.”

According to Tehran, this is the 4^th such killing in two years.  All of the assassinations have been blamed on Israel.  

1/14/12: The United States completes the deployment of 15,000 troops to Kuwait, mostly combat units.  Their stated mission is to provide security in the region.  According to 1st Lt. Kelly McManus, spokeswoman for 1st BCT, 1st Cavalry Division, “We will operate with our standard equipment and in doing so provide a force that is both immediately available and augments a joint team that stands as a strong deterrent against those who wish to harm the U.S. and/or its allies.” 

 

With this groundwork laid we can begin to analysis the situation and attempt to determine how these events will play out.  Despite my hopes of keeping this timeline more succinct I feel more detail would only further illuminate the situation. 

Israel: Given that Iran regularly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, the Israelis have every right to be apprehensive about a nuclear Iran.  While Iran has had missiles capable of reaching Israel for years, it hasn’t had the capacity to cause significant destruction.  However if Iran develops nuclear warheads this threat will no longer be empty words.  Given this it is little wonder, or secret, that Israel and the United States developed and deployed the Stuxnet virus to derail Iran’s nuclear development.  

Regarding the four Iranian nuclear scientists killed over the last two years, while it can’t be confirmed that Israel was responsible for their deaths, it is not a baseless assumption either.  Prior to the advent of the Stuxnet virus several members of Israel’s cabinet wanted to bomb Iranian uranium enrichment facilities.  Given this prior willingness to target the workplace of the scientists it isn’t much of a stretch to believe Israel would be willing to bomb the scientists themselves.  Assuming Israel is responsible for these assassinations, they would undoubtedly justify the killings by arguing killing four scientists and preventing Iran from possessing nuclear capabilities will save the lives of thousands of Israelis. 

Russia: In 2010 Russia supported the passage of four sets of UN sanctions against Iran.  This came after the United States reduced plans to build a missile defense system in Poland. The official purpose of the missile system was to protect Europe from the growing threat of an Iranian missile attack, though Russia perceived the system as targeting it.  Additionally Russia cancelled plans to sell ground-to-air missiles to Iran in 2010 and the new START treaty was signed by President Obama and ratified by Congress in February 2011.  Recently however Russia has called increasing sanctions against Iran as a violation of International law.  This change comes as talks between Washington and Moscow on missile defense have broken down.  

Looking forward both counties will hold Presidential elections this year.  If a Republican takes the Oval Office or Vladimir Putin returns to the Russian Presidency it is unlikely relations between the United States and Russia will improve.  This tension will limit the ability of the United States to appeal to the UN to legitimize further sanctions, or even military action, against Iran as Russia is a P5 member of the UNSC. 

United States: Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz shows the sanctions levied against it are working as they forced Iran to make a diplomatic error in threating to close the Strait of Hormuz.  Furthermore saving Iranian sailors in distress increases the United States’ persona as a benevolent humanitarian.  Despite Iran’s warning that the USS Stennis should not return to the Persian Gulf, the United States can easily make the case that the carrier group must patrol the region to protect commercial ships from pirates.  This argument is strengthened and justified by the fact that it was the USS Stennis carrier group which rescued 13 Iranian sailors a week ago. 

In essence the United States has done a masterful job of forcing Iran into a diplomatic corner, and in an effort to relieve some of the pressure Iran only dug itself into a hole.  Now the United States only has to stick to its guns and send the USS Stennis back into the Gulf.  The combination of this and continuing to rally more Nations to impose sanctions against Iran will force Tehran’s hand, resulting in one of three outcomes.  If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz because the United States and its allies refuse to drop their sanctions, the US and its allies will be justified in using military force to ensure the international waters are safe and open for commerce.  The second possible outcome is while the USS Stennis carrier group returns to the Persian Gulf (with the official purpose of protecting all vessels from pirates) Iran attacks the group.  Again this would justify the United States in attacking Iran.  In both of these situations Iran is the military aggressor.  In addition both would undoubtedly result in destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.  As was stated in the timeline, the United States recently deployed 15,000 soldiers to Kuwait.  The stated purpose of this subtle show of strength is for the troops to act as a deterrent against those who would harm the US and/or its allies.  Of course the third possibility is Iran neither closes the Strait nor harasses the USS Stennis.  In this case Iran will be viewed as a rogue nation unwilling to cooperate within the international system and unwilling/unable to follow through with its threats.  This will cause nations to not heed future threats made by Iran.

Iran: Iran is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand having nuclear capabilities (whether for energy, healthcare, or military purposes) would establish Iran as a regional hegemon.  Conversely, the sanctions have crippled Iran’s economy and only the abandonment of its nuclear program will lift them. 

Fortunately for Iran whether it chooses to continue or abandon its nuclear program it will not be in uncharted diplomatic waters.  Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction prior to the Gulf War, after which they were forbidden from continuing the work.  In 2003 when the United States had ‘proof’ that Iraq was developing WMD’s again Iraq denied it.  Capturing these weapons became the pretense for the Iraq War, resulting in the execution of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.  The second example is North Korea, which has nuclear weapons and suffers from numerous sanctions.  For years North Korea has agreed to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for humanitarian aid.  Despite repeated military actions against South Korea, (see ‘Outstanding Leader’ and the Future of North Korea post) Pyongyang is able to avoid a full scale military response by the US, South Korea, and Japan because Seoul and Tokyo are within range of North Korea’s nuclear missiles.   

Hypothetically, as a leader with little regard for the welfare of my people I would opt to follow the example of North Korea as that is the option in which I remain in power.  However there is a big difference between Iran and North Korea, that being Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons yet.  Because of this Nations opposing Iran have some pretense and justification to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities without the risk of a nuclear backlash against Tel Aviv.  To survive the next few years and develop nuclear capabilities Tehran needs to tread lightly and make every effort to minimize the effect, or visibility, of the sanctions.  However this strategy is no longer possible due to Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and against the USS Stennis.  With these threats Nations not previously involved in the sanctions would suffer from the economic effects of preventing one fifth of the world’s oil from flowing freely. 

Will Iran actually close the Strait?  Despite my urge to argue no, Iran has already proven that it follows different logic than I do.  In addition to my remarks in the previous paragraph I also believe making such a hostile threat only shows how weak and desperate Iran is.  As Sun Tzu notes, ‘when you are strong make yourself appear weak, when you are weak appear strong.’ By this logic Iran should be doing everything possible to hide the effects the sanctions are having on its economy and casually act as though the sanctions are insignificant.  Instead Iran has threatened to close an international waterway.  If Iran fails to follow through on this it will further show how weak they are.  If Iran does close the strait or take action against the USS Stennis it will prompt the United States to follow through on its promise to take military action to keep the strait open or defend itself.  Either way Iran will not win.