"Rethinking American Options on Iran is republished with permission of STRATFOR." Read more: Rethinking American Options on Iran | STRATFOR

By George Friedman

Public discussion of potential attacks on Iran’s nuclear development sites is surging again. This has happened before. On several occasions, leaks about potential airstrikes have created an atmosphere of impending war. These leaks normally coincided with diplomatic initiatives and were designed to intimidate the Iranians and facilitate a settlement favorable to the United States and Israel. These initiatives have failed in the past. It is therefore reasonable to associate the current avalanche of reports with the imposition of sanctions and view it as an attempt to increase the pressure on Iran and either force a policy shift or take advantage of divisions within the regime.

My first instinct is to dismiss the war talk as simply another round of psychological warfare against Iran, this time originating with Israel. Most of the reports indicate that Israel is on the verge of attacking Iran. From a psychological-warfare standpoint, this sets up the good-cop/bad-cop routine. The Israelis play the mad dog barely restrained by the more sober Americans, who urge the Iranians through intermediaries to make concessions and head off a war. As I said, we have been here before several times, and this hasn’t worked.

The worst sin of intelligence is complacency, the belief that simply because something has happened (or has not happened) several times before it is not going to happen this time. But each episode must be considered carefully in its own light and preconceptions from previous episodes must be banished. Indeed, the previous episodes might well have been intended to lull the Iranians into complacency themselves. Paradoxically, the very existence of another round of war talk could be intended to convince the Iranians that war is distant while covert war preparations take place. An attack may be in the offing, but the public displays neither confirm nor deny that possibility.

The Evolving Iranian Assessment

STRATFOR has gone through three phases in its evaluation of the possibility of war. The first, which was in place until July 2009, held that while Iran was working toward a nuclear weapon, its progress could not be judged by its accumulation of enriched uranium. While that would give you an underground explosion, the creation of a weapon required sophisticated technologies for ruggedizing and miniaturizing the device, along with a very reliable delivery system. In our view, Iran might be nearing a testable device but it was far from a deliverable weapon. Therefore, we dismissed war talk and argued that there was no meaningful pressure for an attack on Iran.

We modified this view somewhat in July 2009, after the Iranian elections and the demonstrations. While we dismissed the significance of the demonstrations, we noted close collaboration developing between Russia and Iran. That meant there could be no effective sanctions against Iran, so stalling for time in order for sanctions to work had no value. Therefore, the possibility of a strike increased.

But then Russian support stalled as well, and we turned back to our analysis, adding to it an evaluation of potential Iranian responses to any air attack. We noted three potential counters: activating Shiite militant groups (most notably Hezbollah), creating chaos in Iraq and blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which 45 percent of global oil exports travel. Of the three Iranian counters, the last was the real “nuclear option.” Interfering with the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf would raise oil prices stunningly and would certainly abort the tepid global economic recovery. Iran would have the option of plunging the world into a global recession or worse.

There has been debate over whether Iran would choose to do the latter or whether the U.S. Navy could rapidly clear mines. It is hard to imagine how an Iranian government could survive air attacks without countering them in some way. It is also a painful lesson of history that the confidence of any military force cannot be a guide to its performance. At the very least, there is a possibility that the Iranians could block the Strait of Hormuz, and that means the possibility of devastating global economic consequences. That is a massive risk for the United States to take, against an unknown probability of successful Iranian action. In our mind, it was not a risk that the United States could take, especially when added to the other Iranian counters. Therefore, we did not think the United States would strike.

Certainly, we did not believe that the Israelis would strike Iran alone. First, the Israelis are much less likely to succeed than the Americans would be, given the size of their force and their distance from Iran (not to mention the fact that they would have to traverse either Turkish, Iraqi or Saudi airspace). More important, Israel lacks the ability to mitigate any consequences. Any Israeli attack would have to be coordinated with the United States so that the United States could alert and deploy its counter-mine, anti-submarine and missile-suppression assets. For Israel to act without giving the United States time to mitigate the Hormuz option would put Israel in the position of triggering a global economic crisis. The political consequences of that would not be manageable by Israel. Therefore, we found an Israeli strike against Iran without U.S. involvement difficult to imagine.

The Current Evaluation

Our current view is that the accumulation of enough enriched uranium to build a weapon does not mean that the Iranians are anywhere close to having a weapon. Moreover, the risks inherent in an airstrike on its nuclear facilities outstrip the benefits (and even that assumes that the entire nuclear industry is destroyed in one fell swoop — an unsure outcome at best). It also assumes the absence of other necessary technologies. Assumptions of U.S. prowess against mines might be faulty, and so, too, could my assumption about weapon development. The calculus becomes murky, and one would expect all governments involved to be waffling.

Sunday News Talk Show Schedule for Sunday, June 6, 2010

ABC's "This Week" - Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass), Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX); Roundtable: George Will, Liz Cheney, Huffington Post's Arianna Huffington, Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - Admiral Thad Allen, National Incident Commander for the Deepwater BP Oil Spill Response, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL); Roundtable: CBS' Sharyl Attkisson, Washington Post's Dan Balz, CBS' Jan Crawford.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - Preempted for coverage of the French Open.

CNN's "State of the Union" - AR LG Bill Halter (D), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), New York Times' Jackie Calmes, Los Angeles Times' Doyle McManus.

"Fox News Sunday" - Admiral Thad Allen, National Incident Commander for the Deepwater BP Oil Spill Response, MS Gov. Haley Barbour, Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the US, RNC Chair Michael Steele .

Carl Jung On Death | The New Republic

Carl Jung On Death | The New Republic

Let's Lose the "Race Card"

I am disheartened by the subtle and blatant racism that I see bubbling to the surface as reasonable and civil people attempt to debate solutions to the very serious issues we face in this country. And let's be clear here. As I noted in a recent article, when Sean Hannity espouses the view that "he's [President Obama] not one of us" and the birthers question whether or not President Obama is an American citizen, they endorse and encourage a subtle, insidious racism that ultimately is just as damaging as the blatantly racial slurs and signs we see and hear from the dumbed-down bigots that have been given a disproportionate voice in the current debates.

Having acknowledged that, it's time for Dems and progressives to put aside the "race card". While it is certainly a legitimate criticism of the attitudes and tactics of many on the right wing fringe, focusing our attention on this issue is a distraction that our opponents invite and fully use to their advantage to divert attention from what should be the real focus of our debate--our fragile and struggling economic system that continues to be significantly impacted by the exponential rise in health care costs and a broken healthcare system that fails to address the needs of all of our citizens.

It's time to put the "race card" back in the deck and play the "smart card". The facts speak for themselves and they fully support the position espoused by President Obama and his supporters. The current healthcare system is broke. Millions of our fellow citizens lack insurance and access to adequate health care and those of us with benefits should be mindful, particularly in the current economic climate, that we all face the risk of falling into that category. Thousands of Americans (including those with health insurance) each day file for bankruptcy precipitated by their inability to pay their medical bills. The impact of rising health care cost continues to impact the ability of corporate America to compete in a global economy and is crippling the small business sector. Many on the right and the center argue that we're moving too fast and it's foolhardy to tackle this issue at the same time that we're attempting to revive a fragile economy without fully comprehending that true health care reform is vital to the long term viability of our economy.

There exists in this nation an intelligent, rational, responsible and fair-minded majority that is ready and willing to support reasonable solutions to the serious problems we face. It's time to reject racism and the use of the "race card" and get on with a serious debate of how to solve the serious problems our nation faces.

Sunday Morning Talk Show Lineup September 6, 2009

Image via Wikipedia

We can expect to see the health care debate again take center stage this Sunday as tempers continue to flare at heated town hall meetings across the country, President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress' polled approval rate declines and negotiations step up as President Obama prepares to use the bully pulpit of a prime time address to Congress to present his case for health care care reform now. Also in the spotlight this week is the US mission in Afghanistan in the aftermath of growing dissent from the left and right factions of the political spectrum, the controversy swirling around President Obama's planned speech to students across the country the following Tuesday and growing concerns regarding the H1N1 flu as students return to school and the nation anticipates the approaching winter season.

ABC's "This Week": White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. A special health care roundtable with former Senate Majority leaders Tom Daschle and Bob Dole, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), chairman of the House Republican Conference and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), Roundtable: George Will ; ABC’s Matthew Dowd, The Nation’s Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel and David Sanger, Chief Washington Correspondent for The New York Times.

NBC's "Meet the Press": David Axelrod, White House Senior Adviser and the roundtable: Rudy Giuliani , Fmr. Mayor of New York City (R); Fmr. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tn), Chair, Democratic Leadership Council; Tom Brokaw , NBC News and Tom Friedman, Columnist, New York Times

CBS's "Face the Nation": Secretary of Education Arne Duncan

CNN's "State of the Union": Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minnesota; Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minnesota; Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska; Center for Disease Control Director Thomas Frieden And a leader in the fight for a public health care option, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minnesota

"Fox News Sunday": Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.; Gov. Howard Dean, former Democratic National Committee chairman; Newt Gingrich, former speaker of the House, and John Podesta, president and CEO of Center for American Progress.Roundtable: Bill Kristol , Weekly Standard & Fox News; Mara Liasson. National Public Radio & Fox News; Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard & Fox News and Juan Williams, National Public Radio & Fox News

HEALTH CARE REFORM--The Republican Playbook

First of all, let's consider the facts.....The United States spends over $1.9 trillion annually on healthcare expenses, more than any other industrialized country. This figure includes costs to our government, the private sector, and individuals. Researchers at Johns Hopkins Medical School have estimated the United States spends 44 percent more per capita than Switzerland, the country with the second highest expenditures, and 134 percent more than the median for members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (whose member states include all of the European nations, Mexico, Japan and S. Korea). And U.S. economic woes have only increased the burden of health care costs on individuals and businesses. The United States spent 16 percent of its GDP in 2007 on health care, also higher than any other developed nation. And the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that number will rise to 25 percent by 2025 without changes to federal law. In November 2008 Kaiser Foundation reported health premiums for workers have risen 114 percent in the last decade. And the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has noted that, at 12 percent, health care is the most expensive benefit paid by U.S. employers.

The Republican spin machine has been working fast and furious during the recent presidential campaign and since to avoid and obscure the real truth about the very serious issue of heath care in our country. Sadly, the truth is that tens of millions of our fellow citizens are uninsured, not because they have opted out, but rather because they can not afford it. And the United States--the sole remaining superpower also has the dubious distinction of being the only developed country remaining in the world community where health care is a privilege and not a right of citizenship. And the ever-rising costs of health care is a concern to small business owners. Small Business Majority, according to its website, sets out its goal as, “solving the single-biggest problem facing America’s 27 million small businesses: affordable and accessible health care.” Its chief executive, John Arensmeyer, says, “We’re trying to make sure that policymakers understand how critical getting health care reform is for small business and how our health care crisis is killing small business.” Even for those of us that have health care insurance, the reality is that we are only a heartbeat away from bankruptcy if we experience a serious accident or major medical illness or lose our jobs.

And the tactics of the Republican and right wing conservative nay-sayers can be summed up neatly--delay, distract, distort, demagogue and disrupt.

The Politics of Fear, Hate and Division

Image by tsevis via Flickr

In the wake of an inept, corrupt and misguided administration that scared the American people and manipulated the Congress into an ill-advised war and left our economy in ruins there emerged a pivotal figure--a voice for hope and meaningful change and politics conducted in a new way. Barrack Obama challenged us to honestly confront the enormous changes we face at this critical point in history. His up-lifiting message was welcomed by many who saw a refreshing contrast with the dumbed down, polarizing message of the conservative right-wingers. And their response-- "he's not one of us", "he hates white people", "he's Un-American", and now, "he's not an American", reflects the fear that his success has engendered in the partisan, hate-filled closet bigots that have an inordinate influence on the views of our citizens.

So, at this crucial juncture, the hate and fear mongers at Fox News and conservative talk radio show hosts have doubled down on their efforts to tear down this perceived threat to the status quo by playing the race card. When you cut to the chase, Sean Hannity stating that President Obama is not one of us, Michelle Malkin referring to Obama's "cronies of color" and the birthers (and the complicit Republicans who decline to repudiate their viewpoint) ultimately appeal to our baser instincts--the fear and distrust in people that has always been at the very core of that lingering stain on our national character--racism.

There are legitimate differences of opinion and philosophy on the solutions to the serious problems our nation and world faces. Let's debate them civilly and earnestly--keeping our citizens' and country's best interests always in mind. The time has come to repudiate the politics of fear, division and hatred promulgated by Inanity, Limbaugh, Beck, Malkin, Coulter and their ilk and move forward in a truly bipartisan effort to meet the challenges we face. Our future and the future of generations to come hangs in the balance!

Russia, Ahmadinejad and Iran Reconsidered by George Friedman | July 20, 2009

At Friday prayers July 17 at Tehran University, the influential cleric and former Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani gave his first sermon since Iran’s disputed presidential election and the subsequent demonstrations. The crowd listening to Rafsanjani inside the mosque was filled with Ahmadinejad supporters who chanted, among other things, “Death to America” and “Death to China.” Outside the university common grounds, anti-Ahmadinejad elements — many of whom were blocked by Basij militiamen and police from entering the mosque — persistently chanted “Death to Russia.”

Death to America is an old staple in Iran. Death to China had to do with the demonstrations in Xinjiang and the death of Uighurs at the hands of the Chinese. Death to Russia, however, stood out. Clearly, its use was planned before the protesters took to the streets. The meaning of this must be uncovered. To begin to do that, we must consider the political configuration in Iran at the moment.

The Iranian Political Configuration

There are two factions claiming to speak for the people. Rafsanjani represents the first faction. During his sermon, he spoke for the tradition of the founder of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who took power during the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Rafjsanjani argued that Khomeini wanted an Islamic republic faithful to the will of the people, albeit within the confines of Islamic law. Rafsanjani argued that he was the true heir to the Islamic revolution. He added that Khomeini’s successor — the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — had violated the principles of the revolution when he accepted that Rafsanjani’s archenemy, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, had won Iran’s recent presidential election. (There is enormous irony in foreigners describing Rafsanjani as a moderate reformer who supports greater liberalization. Though he has long cultivated this image in the West, in 30 years of public political life it is hard to see a time when has supported Western-style liberal democracy.)

The other faction is led by Ahmadinejad, who takes the position that Rafsanjani in particular — along with the generation of leaders who ascended to power during the first phase of the Islamic republic — has betrayed the Iranian people. Rather than serving the people, Ahmadinejad claims they have used their positions to become so wealthy that they dominate the Iranian economy and have made the reforms needed to revitalize the Iranian economy impossible. According to Ahmadinejad’s charges, these elements now blame Ahmadinejad for Iran’s economic failings when the root of these failings is their own corruption. Ahmadinejad claims that the recent presidential election represents a national rejection of the status quo. He adds that claims of fraud represent attempts by Rafsanjani — who he portrays as defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi’s sponsor — and his ilk to protect their positions from Ahmadinejad.

The Medvedev Doctrine and American Strategy

September 2, 2008 | 1705 GMT

By George Friedman
The United States has been fighting a war in the Islamic world since 2001. Its main theaters of operation are in Afghanistan and Iraq, but its politico-military focus spreads throughout the Islamic world, from Mindanao to Morocco. The situation on Aug. 7, 2008, was as follows:

1. The war in Iraq was moving toward an acceptable but not optimal solution. The government in Baghdad was not pro-American, but neither was it an Iranian puppet, and that was the best that could be hoped for. The United States anticipated pulling out troops, but not in a disorderly fashion.
2. The war in Afghanistan was deteriorating for the United States and NATO forces. The Taliban was increasingly effective, and large areas of the country were falling to its control. Force in Afghanistan was insufficient, and any troops withdrawn from Iraq would have to be deployed to Afghanistan to stabilize the situation. Political conditions in neighboring Pakistan were deteriorating, and that deterioration inevitably affected Afghanistan.
3. The United States had been locked in a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program, demanding that Tehran halt enrichment of uranium or face U.S. action. The United States had assembled a group of six countries (the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) that agreed with the U.S. goal, was engaged in negotiations with Iran, and had agreed at some point to impose sanctions on Iran if Tehran failed to comply. The United States was also leaking stories about impending air attacks on Iran by Israel or the United States if Tehran didn’t abandon its enrichment program. The United States had the implicit agreement of the group of six not to sell arms to Tehran, creating a real sense of isolation in Iran.

Related Special Topic Page

• The Russian Resurgence

In short, the United States remained heavily committed to a region stretching from Iraq to Pakistan, with main force committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the possibility of commitments to Pakistan (and above all to Iran) on the table. U.S. ground forces were stretched to the limit, and U.S. airpower, naval and land-based forces had to stand by for the possibility of an air campaign in Iran — regardless of whether the U.S. planned an attack, since the credibility of a bluff depended on the availability of force.
The situation in this region actually was improving, but the United States had to remain committed there. It was therefore no accident that the Russians invaded Georgia on Aug. 8 following a Georgian attack on South Ossetia. Forgetting the details of who did what to whom, the United States had created a massive window of opportunity for the Russians: For the foreseeable future, the United States had no significant forces to spare to deploy elsewhere in the world, nor the ability to sustain them in extended combat. Moreover, the United States was relying on Russian cooperation both against Iran and potentially in Afghanistan, where Moscow’s influence with some factions remains substantial. The United States needed the Russians and couldn’t block the Russians. Therefore, the Russians inevitably chose this moment to strike.
On Sunday, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev in effect ran up the Jolly Roger. Whatever the United States thought it was dealing with in Russia, Medvedev made the Russian position very clear. He stated Russian foreign policy in five succinct points, which we can think of as the Medvedev Doctrine (and which we see fit to quote here):

THE IRANIAN ELECTION AND THE REVOLUTION TEST By George Friedman

Successful revolutions have three phases. First, a strategically located single
or limited segment of society begins vocally to express resentment, asserting
itself in the streets of a major city, usually the capital. This segment is
joined by other segments in the city and by segments elsewhere as the
demonstration spreads to other cities and becomes more assertive, disruptive and
potentially violent. As resistance to the regime spreads, the regime deploys its
military and security forces. These forces, drawn from resisting social segments
and isolated from the rest of society, turn on the regime, and stop following
the regime's orders. This is what happened to the Shah of Iran in 1979; it is
also what happened in Russia in 1917 or in Romania in 1989.


Revolutions fail when no one joins the initial segment, meaning the initial
demonstrators are the ones who find themselves socially isolated. When the
demonstrations do not spread to other cities, the demonstrations either peter
out or the regime brings in the security and military forces -- who remain loyal
to the regime and frequently personally hostile to the demonstrators -- and use
force to suppress the rising to the extent necessary. This is what happened in
Tiananmen Square in China: The students who rose up were not joined by others.
Military forces who were not only loyal to the regime but hostile to the
students were brought in, and the students were crushed.


A Question of Support
This is also what happened in Iran this week.