22 thoughts on “Iranian Nukes And NASA”

  1. A very interesting and thoughtful post. But I’m going to guess you’ve misread the Russians. They’ve always been very careful to keep the nukes to themselves — you didn’t see them sharing those things with the East Germans and Bulgarians during the Cold War, for example — and they have a nasty little Islamic problem of their own all along their Asian border. It’s very hard to see them as a matter of policy midwifing a nuclear Islamic loose cannon within 15 minutes ballistic missile flight time of Moscow.

    I would guess, instead, that the Russians are doing their best to use the mad mullahs as an irritant to the United States, while keeping their own options open about putting a fork in the Iranian ambitions, should it prove necessary. They’re very good at playing this kind of hall of mirrors game.

    But the Russians can’t pay their former nuke people much, and I don’t doubt a lot of the second-rankers have been cut loose and are starving. So I would guess Netanyahu’s mission is to make the Russians aware of some renegades, and invite them to take whatever action they feel is in their national self-interest, such as having the KGB kill them.

    I really doubt he’s sending a bomb warning to Russia. For one thing, the Russians wouldn’t be the least bit impressed with such a thing. For another, I think Netanyahu knows that. I smell realpolitik, not to mention Netanyahu’s conviction that Moscow is, at this point, an epitome of professionalism and competence compared to Washington, so that’s where the fulcrum lies. Talking to Mr. Sunshine ‘n’ Unicorns at 1600 Pennsylvania is about as useful as writing to Santa Claus.

    Nor would I look for any stiffening of spines in Congress, a Congress inhabited at present by Nancy Pelosi and Al Franken, comedians, preeners, and intellectual flyweights. You’d only find such a vigorous foreign policy initiative coming from a serious and determined President. I could see Sarah Palin doing that kind of gutsy old-fashioned national security thing. But no one else, on either side of the aisle.

    So I think we’ll talk ourselves into buying Russian flights to ISS even if the Mossad displays the severed head of a Russian nuclear physicist caught in an Iranian bomb factory on NBC Nightly News. Indeed, with the current crew, in such an event I expect Israel would be excoriated for the tastelessness of dripping Russian blood on the TelePrompTer.

  2. Carl, I can see Israel giving Russia a bomb warning, not to impress them, but merely as professional courtesy. Namely, “This list of Russian citizens may turn up dead soon. Here’s why.”

    I wonder if we’ll soon see the fruits of Nobel Peace prize winner, Obama’s efforts in the Middle East.

  3. No, that doesn’t happen. When you play this game, you don’t admit the existence of the pawns. Let me give you a weird Cold War example that I happen to know about personally. In the early 60s the Americans and Soviets faced each other across the East German border. Naturally, the Americans were quite interested in what kind of local airspace defense the Soviets had nearby. So every now and then they’d just fly a fighter across the border, low and fast, while all the spooks listened carefuly for the chatter and antennas tried to spot the fire-control radars. They counted on the speed of the plane and the surprise and a short trip to avoid a shoot-down.

    Now this is a plain act of war. But did either side ever breathe a word of it? Nope. Suppose one of the planes had been taken down (and for all I know we did lose one or two). Would either side have mentioned it? Nope. The pilot’s family would’ve been told he died in training or whatnot.

    The strange fact is, both sides benefitted from keeping this cat ‘n’ mouse stuff secret. The Americans had no interest in their bellicosity becoming evident, and the Soviets had no interest in letting their vulnerability become apparent. Besides, both sides retained much more tactical flexibility if the whole thing went on outside the public eye, and both sides were quite interested in gleaning useful strategic information out of these little “test” bout shoving matches.

    If the Russians have scientists and techs as a matter of policy in Iran — which, vide supra, I doubt — then they won’t admit their existence, and they are wholly expendable, and they don’t give a damn if Israel knows about them, and the only reason they’d care if Israel kills them is if as a matter of policy they don’t want Israel putting a stop to whatever work they’re doing there.

    And I’m still missing the Russian motivation for actually helping the Iranians develop a homegrown nuclear capacity, instead of merely pretending to be ambivalent about whether they do or not. It’s very helpful to the Bear to have Iran and the US neutralize each other, so Iran doesn’t go fomenting Islamic fundamentalism in the Muslim former SSRs, and so the US forgets about those pesky Georgians and betrays the Poles. I think the Russians are playing a carefully tailored game, maximizing and extending the conflict as long as possible.

    Indeed, if I had to guess, I’d say one of their main worries right now is that Obama is so ready to puss out on Iran that they might have to rein Dinnerjacket in a smidge. Want to speculate about whether there was any Russian money behind the recent protests in Iran? They play a very deep game, you know.

  4. After seeing a TV show last night about using “gravity tractors” to divert asteroids from colliding with Earth, the threat of nukes seem sooo last century. It’s not a stretch to think that the same technology could be used to direct asteroids toward earth as well. It might be crazy to think that you could control such an impact well enough to hurt only your enemies (maybe not?) but imagine that capability in the hands of the mullahs — doomsday could well be an acceptable risk.

    It’s the new arms race, I tell ya, and we can’t afford to fall behind. Mr. President, we cannot allow a gravity tractor gap!

  5. Carl –

    If I am reading you right, if Obama persuades Moscow we will “puss out” and let Iran obtain nuclear weapons then maybe they will need to step in and prevent that from happening.

    Okay, why isn’t that a good strategy?

    If it fails we can still attack. In other words, call Moscow’s bluff by pretending to puss out while the bunker busters remain in inventory.

    After all, Teddy Roosevelt did say to talk softly but carry a big stick.

    However, another concern about bombing is whether the “real” facilities are where we think they are. Bombing decoy facilities would be all detriment and little benefit.

  6. If it fails we can still attack. In other words, call Moscow’s bluff by pretending to puss out while the bunker busters remain in inventory

    And suppose we’re not pretending to wuss out and Russia wusses out as well? Then what’s holding Iran back? I suppose at some point we will end up again with a backbone in the Oval Office again, but that might be too late to correct those particular actions of Iran.

  7. If I am reading you right, if Obama persuades Moscow we will “puss out” and let Iran obtain nuclear weapons then maybe they will need to step in and prevent that from happening.

    Okay, why isn’t that a good strategy?

    Ooh! Ooh! I know this one!

    Russia’s foreign-policy aims are Russia’s, not ours.

  8. Carl:

    Consider what Iran really wants to do with a bomb. Despite Dinnerjacket’s rhetoric, the Iranian military and political elites have to know that they’ll lose any nuclear war with Israel. However many weapons Israel has, it’s “enough.” Ergo, I don’t expect Iran to actually use its bomb. It’s a deterrent, just as MAD theory predicts.

    Instead I expect that Iran will become more brazen in funding its preferred methd of warfare – funding terrorists. Hezbollah will get even more funding, or maybe they’ll get started on funding a takeover of Iraq and Afghanistan and reestablish their Persian Empire stretching from Kabil to Beirut. They’ll have learned the true lesson from the post-9/11 Afghanistan invasion: Don’t enable terrorists unless you can defend the home front from royal ass-kickery. The bomb is their way of keeping the USA in line by holding Tel Aviv hostage.

    The second reason Iran won’t destroy Israel (after “Rockets fall, everybody dies”) is that it’s just too useful as distraction for Persian anger. Like the Palestinians, they can always point to Israel as the source of Iran’s problems. Not everyone will buy it, but enough will to divide the population and discourage populist revolts that the military isn’t big enough to handle.

    So that’s why Iran wants the bomb (“Build Empire; Loot Iraq’s oil and Afghanistan’s opium; control more energy flows to Europe”), and you’ll notice that this does not really harm Russia’s interests. Russia wants to influence the former SSR’s, which are too far afield to really interest Iran, but having a nuclear Iran “close enough” to make them nervous will push them into the protection of Russia’s nuclear umbrella. Russia also benefits from any instability in the energy markets or increased cartelization that Iran introduces.

    So a nuclear Iran can benefit Russia.

    Further, if the One actually attacks Iran over the bomb (whether on his own initiative or pushed into it by France and Israel), Russia will make out like a bandit as Iran is currently a major competitor in natural gas. Any action in the Persian Gulf will triple the value of Russia’s energy reserves overnight while a regional competitor to Russia is removed without them having to take any action (leaving them with more room to bully the former SSR’s).

    So a bombed-up Iran can benefit Russia.

    I’m sure you can see how helping Iran make a bomb is win-win, as long as they are comfortable thinking that Iran won’t actually use it on them (a not unreasonable assumption).

  9. What if Iran’s plan is to build a dozen nuclear bombs, deploy them all on one day as EMP weapons covering every land mass on earth (maybe leaving a little patch open around Iran), thereby destroying all the technological infrastructure that currently gives the infidel world its unholy advantage over the world of Islam, and then grin and look around for the twelfth imam to come and reward them?

    I’m afraid such a plan would be unsusceptible to deterrence. The possibility they would get killed in the retaliation would only make the attempt holier.

    Question: if SpaceX does demonstrate the capability to supply services that NASA continues to get from the Russians, and the law says NASA can’t contract with a nation helping Iran get nukes, and evidence is available that Russia is doing exactly that — would SpaceX have standing to sue NASA for not choosing them over Soyuz?

  10. What if Iran’s plan is to build a dozen nuclear bombs, deploy them all on one day as EMP weapons covering every land mass on earth (maybe leaving a little patch open around Iran), thereby destroying all the technological infrastructure that currently gives the infidel world its unholy advantage over the world of Islam, and then grin and look around for the twelfth imam to come and reward them?

    It would solve the problem.

    Question: if SpaceX does demonstrate the capability to supply services that NASA continues to get from the Russians, and the law says NASA can’t contract with a nation helping Iran get nukes, and evidence is available that Russia is doing exactly that — would SpaceX have standing to sue NASA for not choosing them over Soyuz?

    “SpaceX doesn’t meet the standards” and/or “We found that Falcon 9 and Dragon don’t have sufficient performance.” If NASA doesn’t want SpaceX near the ISS (and there’s no sign really that NASA is hostile towards SpaceX), they have tried and true excuses to chose from. In that case, SpaceX can sue, but they probably won’t get a NASA contract again (unless they can survive the absence of NASA business for a while).

  11. Bill, McGehee answered your question nicely. In any event, the other answer is that the United States does not have the kind of unified patient, near dictatorial leadership that can play a long game. All US foreign policy tends to be very short-range, because 6-8 years is about the most you can expect to wait before you better have results to show proudly on the TV, cf. George Bush and Iraq. It’s one of the less flattering reasons why democracies tend not to start wars.

    Brock, I think you’re all wrong. One of Russia’s main concerns is for the fate of ethnic Russians in the former SSRs — they invaded Georgia over it, recall, and risked serious Western wrath. There are a lot of them, from the USSR days. Furthermore, they really hate and fear Islamic fundamentalism, cf. Chechnya, partly I think from a very long history of antipathy towards religion, particularly fundamentalist religion, and partly from the fear of losing influence over the former SSRs and their other border states.

    I think they worry that a nuclear Iran would attract, not repel, the Islamic influences in the fomer SSRs and border states, and create a power center just over their southern border that they do not want to deal with, and, given the nukes, deal with on some level of parity. Yes, you’re right, they benefit from high oil prices, but steady high oil prices. Instability means sudden dips in the price as well as rises, and that’s no good for the producer. There’s a good reason Saudi Arabia prefers stability in the oil market — and hence is an American client in the interests of suppressing religious fundamentalism in their neck of the woods.

    You’re certainly correct that if the United States with its customary post-war narcissism considers the problem of Iran it’s own problem, the Russians see this as win-win. It keeps both Iran and the US busy tussling with each other, removing both power centers from interfering with Russian goals, but also, as you say, if it degenerates into an actual fight it will probably redound to Russian benefit no matter how it goes. And I expect the Russians are pretty confident that, in the end, they can put a stop to Iranian games if they want to. I expect they are more realistic than the US, and can see well enough that the Islamic regime is actually not very stable, and with a little cynical and efficient help could be toppled into chaos. I expect they’ll keep that option open, and let Dinnerjacket and his keepers know that.

    As for the motivations of the Iranian leadership itself, I suspect they are largely domestic. It’s the same old silly fascist game: when your top-down planned economy goes to hell, find a Great Satan, an Einkreisung, some external enemy to get your populace back to the forges and fields, and not thinking too much about how bare the shelves are getting. Nothing new under the Sun. It’s a short-term policy, because any idiot can see that actually possessing nukes is a Midas-touch disaster. It hobbles you like nothing else. Just look at Pakistan and India, which have been forced to give up any kind of military solution to the Kashmir. In the modern “asymmetrical warfare” game, you get maximal freedom by not having nukes.

    That all suggests that a truly deep game with respect to Iran would be for the US to take a semi-isolationist Not Our Problem point of view. Pointedly observe that whatever mischief Iran gets up to, it will largely impact Russia, the Islamic former SSRs, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, not to mention the Saudis, and Europe, particularly southern Europe with its recent flood of restive Islamic immigrants. Get used to saying Gee, I wonder how you guys are going to solve YOUR problem? Looks nasty. Good luck, huh?

    As far as US interests themselves go, I think these are perfectly satisfied with a strong strategic and SLBM deterrent, a strong 5th Fleet, and decent relations with India and such of the oil-producing Arab nations that don’t want a Shiite fundamentalist tool up their fat asses. Oh, and an explicit NATO-like nuclear guarantee to Israel, of course. And we should give loud praise and quiet financial support to Iranian opposition groups.

    Beyond that…I’d love to see the US shrug its shoulders with respect to Iran and explicitly resign the problem to Russia and Europe. I think we would see a very abrupt about-face in their behaviour. RIght now, they can pursue their interests in restraining Iran and placate their silly leftist leisure class by faintly and ineffectively protesting as the US does their dirty work. Well, screw that.

  12. Post-script: here’s an example of Russian long-game thinking, I believe. Why have they so publically told Obama to go to hell in terms of sanctions on Iran? Why send HRH Clinton humiliatingly home without any high-level meeting? That’s a perfectly unnecessary public snub. They could easily have had her meet Medvedev and issue some bland zero-content release that the Obama people could spin as a Nobel laureate-level triumph, since the press are his pretty little bitches.

    So why not do that? Here’s my guess. They have sized O up, and realized he really doesn’t give a foo about foreign policy. He’s all about looking good on talk shows, and his hoped-for reworking of America’s internals. He really doesn’t care if Iran builds a bomb and even nukes Tel Aviv with it.

    That worries them. They do want the US to do their dirty work. So how do they goad O into getting on with the saber-rattling and confrontation with Iran? Well, how about by (1) suggesting they’re not going to do anything about it (this being the Not My Problem Tag You’re It approach I mentioned above), (2) humiliate Obama so that he needs some kind of muscular foreign policy action to recover his poise — they have correctly read him as an egoist — and (3) give ammunition to his domestic critics that think he’s soft, so he has to do something to fend off that criticism. I think they’ve played it — him, us — well.

  13. I generally endorse this policy, as stated by Carl Pham:

    That all suggests that a truly deep game with respect to Iran would be for the US to take a semi-isolationist Not Our Problem point of view. Pointedly observe that whatever mischief Iran gets up to, it will largely impact Russia, the Islamic former SSRs, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, not to mention the Saudis, and Europe, particularly southern Europe with its recent flood of restive Islamic immigrants. Get used to saying Gee, I wonder how you guys are going to solve YOUR problem? Looks nasty. Good luck, huh?

    As far as US interests themselves go, I think these are perfectly satisfied with a strong strategic and SLBM deterrent, a strong 5th Fleet, and decent relations with India and such of the oil-producing Arab nations that don’t want a Shiite fundamentalist tool up their fat asses. Oh, and an explicit NATO-like nuclear guarantee to Israel, of course. And we should give loud praise and quiet financial support to Iranian opposition groups.

    Beyond that…I’d love to see the US shrug its shoulders with respect to Iran and explicitly resign the problem to Russia and Europe. I think we would see a very abrupt about-face in their behaviour. RIght now, they can pursue their interests in restraining Iran and placate their silly leftist leisure class by faintly and ineffectively protesting as the US does their dirty work. Well, screw that.

    More specifically:

    Aegis SM-3 (naval & land based) for Israel, Turkey and Gulf allies.

    However our praise for internal Iranian opposition groups will merely attract more vigorous repression. Untraceable funding? Sure.

    As for “sanctions” all that would do is maybe allow Hans Blix II to drive hither and yon across Iran in powder blue Land Rovers looking for nuclear material — in other words a waste of time.

  14. PS — Should Obama call Moscow’s bluff?

    Carl you write that you would “love to see the US shrug its shoulders with respect to Iran and explicitly resign the problem to Russia and Europe.”

    All Obama has to do is say “I’m busy driving my train over Chairman Steele – the GOP ‘cow on the tracks of health care reform'”

  15. He already has said just that, Bill — to anyone who’s listening. As I said, I think this is why Netanyahu, no fool, is talking directly to Moscow. What people misunderstand about “the world’s” love for Obama is that it’s like the teenager’s love of the parents that leave town for the weekend. Par-tee!!!

    Anyway, Obama could never pull off my “long game” suggestion, because a completely essential part of it is the gravitas necessary to convey to the Iranians that there is a certain line in the sand, and crossing it means instant fiery death. So long as you’re quiet back there, you can make horrible faces at your sister, but you do NOT want me to have to stop this car…

    Despite his manly baritone that fools so many girly men on the left, Obama is too much of a puss to pull this off. I don’t think anyone seriously believes he would flip out in a rage and order Tehran nuked within the hour if he heard the Iranians had fired on Tel Aviv. And, for the plan to work, that’s the way it’s got to be.

  16. Carl, doesn’t Israel have their own H-bombs? More than enough to incinerate all of Iran’s major cities?

    It doesn’t matter what the U.S. does or does not do or threaten. If Iran attacks Israel with atomic weapons Israel shall make Iran into a parking lot all by itself.

  17. Jericho II & Jericho III plus H-bombs assure than Iran cannot survive a war with Israel, even if the U.S. does nothing.

  18. I don’t trust Israel’s current retaliation capabilities. It’s a small country with those missiles and a couple of nuclear subs. It could get obliterated without warning along with simultaneous attacks on the subs. In addition to encouraging a “feeling lucky” foe, that greatly increases the incentive for Israel to preemptively strike. The MAD game only works if both parties can deliver and aren’t too crazy. We already know about the crazy problem, but we also have this vulnerability problem.

  19. Carl, doesn’t Israel have their own H-bombs?

    You’re asking me? My Mossad connections aren’t that good, and even if they were, if I told you I’d have to kill you.

    More than enough to incinerate all of Iran’s major cities?

    I kind of doubt that. Iran is a big nation, and besides, if you want a very robust deterrent, you kind of have to have a variety of delivery means, e.g. our old “triad,” and it gets kind of obvious and expensive. I would be surprised if the Israelis had that kind of strategic infrastructure all cleverly hidden.

    The point in deterrence is disproportionate response. You don’t want the ayatollahs thinking a Hiroshima bomb on Tel Aviv is followed by something similar delivered by air from the IDF, which maybe they can stop if they are lucky enough with SAMs, and besides it might not be that bad, 30,000 deaths and a big hole in a Tehran suburb won’t necessarily destroy the Islamic Republic, maybe hopefully.

    No, you want them thinking the result would be the arrival 30 minutes later of a hundred 300 kt warheads from American ICBMs and SLBMs, with the immediate death of a million Iranians and the complete wreckage of Persian society for the next century. Something really outrageous, over the top, insane, something that stupid Texan cowboy George Bush would do. That’s deterrence.

  20. No, you want them thinking the result would be the arrival 30 minutes later of a hundred 300 kt warheads from American ICBMs and SLBMs, with the immediate death of a million Iranians and the complete wreckage of Persian society for the next century. Something really outrageous, over the top, insane, something that stupid Texan cowboy George Bush would do. That’s deterrence.

    That’d kill a few more than a million. Still that’s one of the problems with Obama. He seems to be like the other Democrats who got into wars. The military opportunists of the world aren’t even remotely intimidated by him. Either he’ll roll over or (if we’re lucky) he’ll overcompensate, be more GWB than GWB because he can’t see a way out.

  21. For me the preemptive strike of choice is to wait for the Supreme Religious Council and The upper end of the Revolutionary Guard to be meeting in 2 places at the same time and deliver from deep orbital free fall about 4 cubic meters of DU on each meeting.
    Or send large numbers to Shia to Pairidice with 2 sorties of the full B1 fleet and ACLMs full of nerve gas and program them to do figure 8s over the 1000 largest cities in Iran and leave the REAL ESTATE intact. Take about 12 Hr. from Diego Garcia or 2 hr. from Bagram and Bagdad. Then… deport the Palestinians off to clean up their new home land.
    I like the first one much better ’cause I have known more than a few Iranians, that I, in fact, did like.

Comments are closed.