Iran: is this a prelude to war?

A few straws in the wind in Iran.

I have been keeping a weather eye on what has been happening in Iran over November. Of course the longstanding issue is over what has been going on with the development of nuclear power in that country. While Iran claims that they are developing a nuclear option to provide power and medical supplies, the US is pretty sure that they are developing a bomb. Why should we believe otherwise? It's a strange fact that people tell lies and there are always some gullible people who believe them.

Here is the gist of a speech that even Obama gave a couple of weeks ago:

Barack Obama to consider all options to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons

US president Barack Obama has said economic sanctions against Iran to contain Tehran's nuclear ambitions have "enormous bite," and he will consult with other nations on additional steps to ensure that Iran does not acquire an atomic weapon.

14th November 2011:

Mr Obama expressed confidence that Russia and China in particular understand the threat of a nuclear armed Iran would pose and said their leaders agree that Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons and trigger a nuclear arms race in the region.

The president, answering questions at a press conference during an Asia-Pacific economic summit, did not specifically say he would consider military action if Tehran were to persist in arming itself with a nuclear weapon. But he added: "We are not taking any options off the table. Iran with nuclear weapons would pose a threat not only to the region but also to the United States."

A report on Friday from the International Atomic Energy Agency provided new evidence that Iran's nuclear program includes clandestine efforts to build a bomb. The report, circulated among the UN watchdog agency's member countries, includes satellite images, letters, diagrams and other documents. It alleges Iran has been working to acquire equipment and weapons design information, testing high explosives and detonators and developing compute models of a warhead's core. Taken together, it's the most unequivocal evidence yet that the Iranian program ranges far beyond enriching uranium for use in energy and medical research, which is what Tehran says it's for.

In meetings on Saturday with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev nor Chinese President Hu Jintao, Mr Obama sought to rally support for putting new pressure on Iran's regime. But there was little public sign either country was ready to drop its opposition to additional sanctions. Four rounds of UN sanctions have caused economic hardship in Iran, but have yet to force any change in the nuclear program.

Remember back to Suez in 1956? At this time Britain, France and Israel entered into a conspiracy to stop Col Nasser from nationalizing the Suez Canal. They were stymied by the US using its financial muscle to threaten to paralyze the markets in London and threaten the British economy. Now with international markets especially in the Eurozone so vulnerable it is possible that the freedom to act politically by the West would be compromised. So I was heartened to read this in the afternoon editions today:

The Bank of England, together with the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Canada, today announced co-ordinated action to enhance their capacity to provide liquidity support to the global financial system. In a dramatic move welcomed warmly by the markets the banks said that their actions aimed to ease strains in financial markets and alleviate the effects of such strains on the supply of credit to households and businesses and thus boost economic activity.

A couple of days ago this was in the news:

Mystery explosion rocks Iran city

A large explosion has been reported in the Iranian city of Isfahan as the regime issued conflicting reports apparently designed to deny any suggestions of a sabotage attack on its nuclear facilities. Officials gave varying accounts of a "huge explosion" in the ancient city, which hosts one of Iran's main facilities for refining uranium in its nuclear programme. While some sources told news agencies there had been a blast on military facilities, others said there had been a fireball at a petrol station. Residents of the city were independently telling relatives and friends overseas that the city had been shaken by a massive blast in the early afternoon.

The reports immediately prompted speculation that Iran had suffered another sabotage attack, just two weeks after a blast at a missile base gave rise to similar suspicions. Isfahan is home to Iran's largest facility for research and development of ballistic missiles. Multiple reports said the blast did not emanate from the nuclear facility.

Then yesterday we had this:

Iranian hardliners storm British Embassy in Tehran.

Two British Embassy compounds were stormed mid-afternoon on Tuesday during a demonstration in the street outside the main building in downtown Tehran, smashing windows, torching a car and burning the British flag in protest against new sanctions imposed by London.

Protesters also broke into the residential compound at Qolhak in north Tehran, a sprawling, wooded property which used to be the embassy's summer quarters. The scenes at the British embassy in Tehran inevitably conjured up memories of the hostage crisis at the nearby US mission that erupted in 1979, during Iran’s Islamist revolution. Then, as now, the mob that stormed the building was led by militant youngsters - but there the similarity ends. The students behind the assault on the US embassy held 52 American nationals hostage for 444 days, with the connivance of the regime.

Privately, Iranian diplomats were disturbed and confused by the scenes in the British embassy. At a time when London has dealt a severe blow to Iran's economy by severing the country's ties with the UK financial system, they hoped to stress the suffering this decision would inflict on ordinary Iranians. Instead, their embassy in London has been shut down and the latest deterioration in diplomatic relations will dominate the agenda.

All this undoubtedly reflects deep divisions within Iran's regime. The two men at the pinnacle of the country's opaque power structure, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, have become bitter rivals. Beneath them, factional struggles have taken over the government, complicated by the approach of presidential elections in 2013. In simple terms, the supreme leader's allies have supported the mob who stormed the embassy; the president's friends have voiced their disquiet. In the shifting sands of Iranian politics, Mr Ahmadinejad appears to be the unlikely voice of moderation in this particular dispute.

From the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague:

The Iranian Chargé in London is being informed now that we require the immediate closure of the Iranian Embassy in London and that all Iranian diplomatic staff must leave the United Kingdom within the next 48 hours.

If any country makes it impossible for us to operate on their soil they cannot expect to have a functioning Embassy here.

This does not amount to the severing of diplomatic relations in their entirety. It is action that reduces our relations with Iran to the lowest level consistent with the maintenance of diplomatic relations.

The House will understand that it remains desirable for British representatives to be in contact with Iranian representatives, for instance as part of any negotiations about their nuclear programme or to discuss human rights. But it does mean that both Embassies will be closed.

We wish to make absolutely clear to Iran and to any other nation that such action against our Embassies and such a flagrant breach of international responsibilities is totally unacceptable to the United Kingdom.

There was a certain inevitability about the British government's decision shut down the Iranian Embassy in London. Now that the British mission in Tehran finds it impossible to function and all of its staff have been withdrawn, it would have been impossible to allow Iranian diplomats to carry on as normal over here.

But the nuances of all this are important. William Hague was at pains to point out that Britain is not breaking off all diplomatic relations with Iran. Instead, bilateral ties are being reduced to the bare minimum, but not severed altogether. This is designed to give the Iranians a bridge back to respectability.

Britain will support an embargo on Iranian oil imports following the deterioration of relations between the two countries, a diplomatic source told Reuters on Wednesday, in an apparent reversal of its former position.

"Now that the UK has downgraded diplomatic relations with Iran, it will support increased sanctions...and would likely go ahead with those sanctions unilaterally or with France and Germany," said a diplomatic source, referring to the ban on Iranian crude oil imports.

Italy will also discuss with its European allies and the US the option of an oil embargo against Iran. Italy is also considering closing its embassy in Tehran, Reuters reports. In light of yesterday's events in Tehran, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle decided that the German ambassador in Iran should be recalled to Berlin for consultations.

All UK based staff have now left Tehran, Hague announces.

French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, is the latest world leader to condemn the attacks. During a cabinet session, "the president firmly condemned the scandalous attack on the embassy of Great Britain" in the Iranian capital, the French government spokeswoman said. Mr Sarkozy said the attacks "confirmed" the decision to impose new sanctions on Iran, the spokeswoman, Budget Minister Valerie Pecresse, told journalists. UN Security Council President Jose Filipe Moraes Cabral condemns the attacks. Norway said it had temporarily closed its embassy but its diplomats continued to work from elsewhere in Tehran

Will this spread beyond Iran? In this little noticed report I notice that Khamenei has been speaking in Saudi Arabia, supposedly bitterly opposed to Iran:

Iran – Supreme leader calls for "Islamic power-bloc"

In a message to more than 2.5 million Hajj pilgrims in Saudi Arabia on 5 November, Iran’s supreme leader called on the world’s Muslim-majority nations to form an “international Islamic power-bloc”, laying down an ominous challenge to Western powers. Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei said that Islamic countries should “make the most of [the] opportunity” created by the Arab Spring, as well as the anti-capitalist movement across the world.

According to the Ayatollah, Islam has become the guiding principle of the Arab uprisings despite the efforts of secular rulers to curtail the influence of religion in their countries. Pointing to the victory of the Islamist Ennahda Party in Tunisia’s recent elections, he predicted similar outcomes elsewhere, saying, “Without doubt, free elections in any Islamic country will hardly result in anything except what happened in Tunisia.”

Heralding a global power shift and issuing an ominous challenge to Western powers, the Ayatollah said that “the West, the United States and Zionism are weaker than ever before”. He urged the entire umma (Islamic nation) and especially the revolutionary nations to continue to be vigilant “against the plots of arrogant international powers”.

The Hajj is a strange thing. Muslims should be committed to visit Mecca once in their lifetimes. I know many Muslims for whom this is a holy and life-changing experience, but many Muslims leave it very late in their lives and actually die on the visit. Charter airlines arrange cheap flights with poor conditions and there is an 8 mile walk at the other end in searing heat. Although there are rickshaws to carry them for this journey many demur and insist on walking. Those who die are often propped upright in their airplane seat and leak body fluids on the way home to European destinations. For the other passengers it is not a pleasant experience.

Armistice Day 2011

Today is Armistice day. It is 93 years since the end of WW1. At 11 am today 11.11.11 the country stood in silence for 2 minutes remembering the dead of not just WW1 but WW11, Palestine, Korea, Aden, Malaya, Kenya, Iraq, The Falklands, Bosnia and Afghanistan. With the exception of Viet Nam, this country has been involved in almost every major conflict in the world. The success in Libya, where there were no British casualties should not blind us to the fact that wars are for killing people. Thousands of Libyans died in that conflict.

Yet even when we are not involved wars go on. The way that some countries treat their own people makes us angry. In Zimbabwe and the Sudan, government behavior is disgraceful and in Somalia there is no effective government. We have no mandate to be the world's policeman.

Afghanistan has shown us the futility of occupation of a hostile country. It is a failed state that could only be ruled by a well-armed oppressive regime that oppressed its people. Even then there would be an insurrection and very unsophisticated weapons are all that would be required to maintain it. Neither Nazi type totalitarian oppression, nor American cleverness can ensure peace.

What is to be done? I have no answer, but keeping our soldiers in harm's way isn't working.

Going to war

Both the first and second world wars were started by the UK because we went to the aid of a country with which we had treaty obligations. Germany invaded Belgium and then Poland. When Iraq invaded Kuwait the same principle applied. After that things got complicated.

With the break up of Yugoslavia after Tito died the Serbs committed atrocities against the Bosnians despite a UN peacekeeping force. Tony Blair persuaded Bill Clinton to help him defend the Bosnians, even though their action was very late and subsequently the Kosovans were also protected from the Serbs. Blair had been encouraged in all this by the success of the invasion of Sierra Leone to protect the government against Charles Taylor in a rebellion funded by blood diamonds.

I see today that Tony Blair is advocating regime change in Iran and Syria. On television yesterday there was a worry that Iraq is now an Iranian vassal state. Yer no-one has advocated invading Zimbabwe or Byelorussia where there are really nasty dictatorships.

Interference in the internal affairs of another country is forbidden by the Treaty of Westphalia. Taking sides in a civil war is dangerous if you are found to have supported the loser (as Tony Blair did in Libya).

What do you do when pitted against a private army. In Sierra Leone it worked out well, but it took 10 years for the might of the US to kill Osama bin Laden. The private army is unlikely to obey the Geneva conventions. Should you? War has become much more difficult.

How should we regard Iraq now?

From press leaks it sounds as though the Chilcot Enquiry is going to blame Tony Blair for the Iraq war. Now that the dust has settled, where now do I stand on it?

I think it has to be examined in context. First, there was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. You could hardly find anyone to support Saddam Hussain on that. An enormous coalition was assembled (even including Somalia) to drive Iraq back. As it happened the Americans could easily have done it themselves with one hand tied behind their backs, but Saddam had built up a reputation with his war against Iran and from his attacks on his own people with gas it was thought that he might well have bacterial and nuclear weapons as well. A lot of this was of Saddam's own doing; his propaganda machine had talked this possibility up.

At the end of the 1st Iraq war it became embarrassing. The 'invincible Revolutionary Guard' were being killed like fish in a barrel on the road from Basra to Baghdad. America got a very powerful armistice: no-fly zones in the north and south, destruction of weapons of mass destruction including the SCUD rockets and any nuclear, microbiological and chemical plans and facilities, grounding of the Iraqi air force, no oil sales (though this was later modified to allow the selling of oil for food and humanitarian relief).

In the years after the 1st Gulf War, Saddam continually broke the terms of the armistice and was repeatedly given last warnings by the UN. British and American jets patrolling the no-fly zones were 'lit-up' by radar; a sign of an impending SAM missile attack; weapons inspectors were denied access; when they were allowed in they were impeded and interfered with; the oil embargo was not obeyed - even relatives of UN high officials were implicated in the cheating, but the chief cheats were those very nations that later would oppose a new UN resolution - China, Russia, France and Germany.

The Saddam propaganda machine was in full flow. Not only was it claiming (for the benefit of potential enemies) that Iraq still had WOMD, but it was also complaining about sick and hungry children, even when Saddam was using humanitarian oil money to build palaces.

Although no country likes to interfere in the internal affairs of another country - and China and Russia are very big on this - Tony Blair could point to a couple of great successes in this respect; the invasion of Sierra Leone (where the decision had been made by a local commander on the ground) and Kosovo (as opposed to Bosnia) where Blair had railroaded Clinton into the decision. America had at that time moved into Afghanistan with worldwide support after 9/11. Indeed it was generally thought that the justification was at least as great as Pearl Harbor.

So it was easy to see why the US and UK had lost patience with Saddam which I think was the reason that the Iraq war started. One thing I strongly disagreed with in the American position was the suggestion that Saddam had anything to do with Osama bin Laden. I always thought that was wishful thinking.

So what went wrong in Iraq? I think it is the same thing that is going wrong in Afghanistan and indeed in Libya. You can't build a nation in 10 years. The greatest success in nation building by an occupying power has been the rebuilding of Germany after WW11, But Germany was a western democracy before Hitler and could become one again. The most alien state to be rebuilt was Japan but the factor most important for success was the preservation of the emperor. Rebuilding the Mogul empire in India has had partial success, but that took the Raj hundreds of years and it is incomplete. The Ottoman empire is still weird and untrainable and the same is largely true for the Russian empire.

I just don't think you can transform a country in a few years. Perhaps Donald Rumsfeld was right. Perhaps the correct strategy should have been get in and get out and let them sort themselves out after that.

What has been happening in South Sudan?

Phone hacking and the Greek economy have dominated the newspapers in the UK but there have been other things happening.

One Christian is martyred every 5 minutes according to Italian sociologist, Lassimo Introvigne. Where is it happening?

One place has been in the civil war between North and South Sudan where thousands were killed and as recently as last month the war was continuing in South Kordofan. Although South Kordofan is part of north Sudan, it has strong ties with the South and their struggle for independence. Ahmed Haroun of the north Sudan’s ruling National Congress Party was declared winner of the state’s gubernatorial election in May, an outcome which the Sudan's People's Liberation Movement strongly disputes, citing claims of vote rigging. Ahmed Haroun is a war lord heavily implicated in the atrocities in Darfur and is under indictment by the War Crimes Tribunal.

On June 5th, Arnu Yusuf, the SPLM’s secretary general for information and communication in South Kordofan State, told the Sudan Tribune that Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) of north Sudan carried out an attack on their premises and a house belonging to the deputy chairperson of the SPLM’s northern sector, Abdel Aziz Adam El-Hilu. “The Sudan Armed Forces and their police staged an attack directed at our premises today. They wanted to forcefully disarm soldiers guarding our premises,” said Yusuf.

He went on to claim that 14 members of SAF and three armed guards from the SPLA, the SPLM’s military wing, were killed in the clashes. “We have lost three comrades. Two others sustained injuries and the fighting is continuing”, says Yusuf, adding that they are determined to defend themselves.

The SPLM official denied that the fighting which took place today was initiated by armed elements associated with the SPLM. “Our people did not initiate any fighting. The Sudan Armed Forces launched a direct attack on our premises as part of the offensive operation. They started attacking villages on Sunday through Monday without success. They lost in Talodi and in Miri. They also lost the fight in Umm Dorien, so they decided to resume it in town this morning”, said Yusuf, who declined to indicate his whereabouts.

Fighting in the flashpoint state erupted on Sunday, 5 June, as SAF moved into the center of Kadugli town following an attack by unidentified gunmen on a police station in the area. Reliable sources, who wish to retain their anonymity, informed Sudan Tribune that shootings took place at Kadugli airport on Tuesday morning and that the conflict in Kadugli itself involved small arms and rocket propelled grenades. The sources also suggested that the UN Refugee Agency and the World Food Program buildings have been under fire.

The UN office in Kadugli confirmed eruption of a heavy fighting in Kadugli town on Tuesday. Kouider Zerrouk, the spokesperson of the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) said "UNMIS is concerned about the ongoing fighting between the SAF and the SPLA and the deteriorating security situation in Kadugli." The UN official cited a different death toll, saying that only six dead bodies were received in the local police hospital, four of whom were policemen and two civilians.

Meanwhile, another UNMIS spokesperson, Hua Jiang, told reporters that “about 3,000 people [are] taking refuge at the Kadugli police hospital". Musa Kaka, another senior member of the SPLM in the area, in an interview with the Sudan Tribune on Tuesday that the people of the Nuba Mountains would not be the first to initiate the fight, but added that they would not allow themselves to be slaughtered “like chickens” and that they had a right to defend themselves. “Nobody in the Nuba Mountains had intention to fight even though they were denied their rights. Our people are peace-loving people. The people of Nuba Mountains are well known for peace but they cannot allow themselves now to be slaughtered like chickens when they have all rights to defense themselves”, said Kaka.

“We know our people were slaughtered in thousands during the war because we went to the bush with the south to fight against the central which did not want us to live in areas and to have right to equal treatment. It was not our choice to be born as black and in the Nuba Mountains. It was the decision of the God and so we cannot change decision of the creator. We will be here and will remain Nuba Mountains. We will stay in our land dead or alive come what may," he said.

He called on sons and daughters of Nuba Mountains in the SAF not to kill their own people. “I call our people in the government of Khartoum, whether as politicians or in the military, not to accept politics of divide and rule in order to kill our people […] Let us resolve our difference and unite one and the same people”, he appealed.

South Kordofan, which lies on the fault lines between north Sudan and the now independent South Sudan, is one of the country’s heavily militarized regions. It saw fierce fighting during the years of Sudan’s north-south civil wars which ended with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005.

Afghanistan

You would have thought that it was a relatively simple matter for our troops to guard against improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan. Michael Yon explains some of the tricks of the trade here.

Why are we in Afghanistan?

From Ralph Peters RealClearPolitics

Within Afghanistan, only a single US program continues to do real damage to the Taliban and President Hamid Karzai wants it to stop.

Our special operations forces (especially, the Army's) have been gutting the Taliban's leadership. Karzai doesn't like that. He didn't like our use of airpower and artillery, either. The Taliban feared them too much and told wild lies about civilian casualties. Most fire support ceased. More soldiers and Marines died.

Now Karzai wants to put a stop to "night raids" by our special operators. If he were actively allied with the Taliban, he couldn't do the terrorists a bigger favor.

A source deep in the fight provided hard numbers-countering Karzai's claims that our strike teams wantonly kill civilians: - Our "most elite" SOF element struck 1043 high-value objectives over the past year, 80% during the hours of darkness. 45% of those black-ops missions-a very high percentage-were successes that "resulted in the capture or death of the targeted individual." - Only a third of those missions-366--required our troops to open fire. They don't go in with guns blazing. On the contrary, these are the most-disciplined soldiers on earth. And night raids limit casualties: An enemy taken by surprise is less likely to respond effectively, so you don't unleash a firefight in the streets.

- In over a thousand raids last year, 18 non-combatants died-because they were bunking with the Taliban and got caught up in a fight. Compare that full-year casualty rate to the 93 people killed in a single day in Mexico's narco-insurgency last week. - Last week alone, the Taliban murdered twice the number of civilians that our special operators killed in an entire year.

- Our top SOF element recently eliminated a half-dozen key Taliban commanders and sub-commanders, seriously disrupting the enemy's chain of command. Top Taliban leaders in Pakistan (protected by our Pakistani "allies") are scrambling to regain control in Afghanistan.

President Karzai's been briefed on these statistics. He ignores them and continues to rail about our SOF forces causing civilian casualties and "violating Afghan culture." Karzai stayed mum, though, about the Taliban's recent hanging of a seven-year-old boy as a "spy." Lynching kids is culturally acceptable.

The doctrine-for which soldiers and Marines are dying in growing numbers-assumes that we're partnered with a host government that has or can build credibility with its people, a government worth fighting for that has the interests of its people at heart. Instead, our troops serve as bodyguards for gangsters. President Karzai has all but dropped the pretense that he wants to defeat the Taliban. He's rushing to cut deals behind our backs.

To show good faith with our enemies, he's methodically stripped us of our military advantages. Air and artillery support were all but eliminated. Our "decisive" Kandahar offensive was neutered. Originally planned for May, the campaign's theme is now "See You In September." Maybe.

Now Karzai wants to halt our SOF strike missions-the only thing left that works in Afghanistan. While CIA drone missions across the border in Pakistan do great service, our troop surge is meaningless - because our troops aren't allowed to do anything useful. According to one officer on the ground, the Army's elite 82nd Airborne Division, which recently wrapped up a thirteen-month tour, "did not target one bad guy." Those splendid soldiers were wasted.

Only our special operators are still in the fight. The rest of our forces have been reduced to serving as pop-up targets. Billions in aid have been squandered. Drug lords rule. Our local "allies" rip us off at every turn.

We went into Afghanistan because the ruling elite were giving succor to a terrorist organization that was causing mayhem around the world. Our purposes were to defend ourselves by closing down the local support. The strategy of developing a Thirteenth Century tyranny into a modern state with energy supplies, agriculture and industry against the will of the local people has been a failure. Let's admit that.

The only sensible option is to withdraw and not waste our treasure and troops there any longer. We should leave with a threat. Any more interference with us and we will come back and bomb you indiscriminately.