Liam Fox reinforces his hawkish credentials today in a speech to the Washington-based Heritage Foundation. Dr Fox, Shadow Defence Secretary, is in USA as part of a Conservative delegation that includes William Hague and George Osborne.
He says that the military option must remain open in the west's dealings with Iran. Dr Fox criticises the British Government and the EU for ruling out the possible use of force:
"To permit a state in this volatile region to develop a nuclear weapon which it has the evident capability to deliver against a range of targets would be to take a huge risk. When that state is under the control of a regime whose leader has called for Israel to be wiped “off the map” - a regime which is already destabilising neighbouring Iraq – that is a risk too far. Clearly, the diplomatic route must continue to be pursued. Iran should be referred to the Security Council. Every pressure must be brought. But it was wrong for the European Union’s foreign affairs spokesman, Xavier Solana, to rule out the use of force. It is wrong for Britain’s Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to echo him. Frederick the Great once observed that diplomacy without arms was like music without instruments. And though the methods of Frederick the Great are not otherwise to be commended, he was certainly right about this. We must keep all options open if we are to stand any chance of achieving a diplomatic solution to the Iranian crisis."
The Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal have both called for Israel to join NATO as part of the west's response to the Iranian president's threats against the Jewish people. John Hulsman and Neil Gardiner have written:
"More importantly, Israeli accession to NATO would explicitly extend the Western alliance’s nuclear deterrent to cover Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Now it will be Tehran, and not the rest of the world, that has a proliferation problem. Any nuclear or conventional attack on Israel, be it direct or through proxies such as Hezbollah or other terrorist groups, would be met by a cataclysmic response from the West that would make the Battle of Omdurman look like a stroll in the park. Israel’s accession would leave the Mullahs with no illusions about the West’s determination to respond to Iran’s strategic threat to the region."
The Bush administration has also refused to rule out the military option and will welcome Dr Fox's intervention. Washington has been particularly grateful for German Chancellor Angela Merkel's hawkish noises on Iran. The White House sees the re-emergence of Germany as a strategic partner as particularly welcome. Being able to partner with Berlin has reduced US pressure on Tony Blair to sign up to a stronger line on Iraq. The White House thinks that Britain's Labour government - with its politically draining commitments in Afghanistan and southern Iraq - cannot be expected to do more than it is already doing in the war on terror.
To retain the use of a military response to a potential threat from Iran is sensible.To rule it out as Solana did was typically stupid.Didn't Straw do the same?
The problem is does Bush retain the political credibility with his own people after his crass handling of Iraq to actually act?
I fear that he does not and that Iran which has been considerably stengthened by the Iraq war will snub all the empty threats which we in the west make.
Posted by: malcolm | February 16, 2006 at 10:52
"Didn't Straw do the same?"
Would this be the same Jack Straw who is MP for a constituency with a large Moslem population? Surely not.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | February 16, 2006 at 11:03
As much as I am a fan of Israel, committing the West to a nuclear confrontation with mad mullahs by inviting her into Nato does not fit my understanding of the national interest.
Posted by: Guido Fawkes | February 16, 2006 at 11:42
Malcolm, DVA: you are missing the geo-political subtleties.
Consider North Korea. It has a large conscript army trained in the latest techniques of the Battle of the Somme, and more to the point a considerable and effective artillery force. The only place these forces have to go is into South Korea (not even Kim Il Thingy is mad enough to plan an invasion of China). So the US has to keep a large army in South Korea to deter the enemy from swarming across No Man's Land. The only problem is, if the North fires first, they've got enough fire power to demolish all before them. Hence the only way to beat the North Koreans is to fire first against them (probably involving nuclear weapons - a popular move). But the most likely thing to make the North Koreans fire first is if they think the US is going to attack them. Thus the US has publicly ruled out firing first against North Korea, to stop them firing first against the US. Result: no 2nd war; no peace treaty to end the 1st war; both sides stare at each other across the barbed wire for 50 yrs. A case study for mutally assured destruction working: neither side really believes the other, but doesn't quite know where it stands.
The nutters in Tehran are hostile. We know it. They know we know it. We know they know we know it. The only resolutions are: the West adopts militant Islam (unlikely); Iran becomes Western (highly unlikely in the short term, but not impossible); a Korean-style stalemate (possible, assuming the nutters in Tehran understand the rules); we go after the nutters (difficult, but becoming more likely).
The US has let the EU flannel around for a few years with the nutters to kick the whole thing into the long grass while it sorts out Iraq and decides what to do. Ruling out firing first is an important part of that non-strategy, although it looks as if the EU has been a bit too convincing.
The tragedy is that, underneath the mullahs, there's the making of a sensible country which probably wouldn't be too hostile to the West (otherwise, why would the mullahs have to go to such lengths to rig the elections?). Bombing Iran is the one thing that would bring the whole country behind the mullahs - but it's reaching the stage where we probably are going to have to bomb Iran.
Watch for: Ukraine-style orange revolutions in the central Asian 'stans'; Congressional funding for democracy movements in Iran.
Posted by: William Norton | February 16, 2006 at 11:46
That sounds very plausible William and I very much hope you're right but a couple of points.Didn't Solana and Straw rule out military action?Not quite the same as 'firing first',I appreciate that this might be merely semantic hairsplitting.
In North Korea doesn't the restraining hand of China keep the 'nutters' under control? In Iran there is no such restraining hand and the 'nutters' seem even more mad than the North Korean variety (a debatable point I know).
Iran being a far stronger,more populous wealthier country than Iraq poses the west a far far greater problem. Mrs T and Bush Snr understood that, it is a shame that his son and his lackey did not.
Posted by: malcolm | February 16, 2006 at 12:12
"Watch for: Ukraine-style orange revolutions in the central Asian 'stans'."
I'm not sure how likely that would be. The circumstances in Ukraine and central Asia are actually rather different, and so are the attitudes of the Western governments towards these areas.
The revolution in Ukraine was supported because Ukraine is on the doorstep of the EU and served as a useful way of firing a warning shot across the bow of Vladimir Putin.
Revolution in central Asia would be politically inconvenient (instability in a vital staging post in the 'war on terror') and would struggle to attract the same level of external support (cue Chamberlainesque descriptions of being 'a faraway land') - witness the failed uprising in the Andijan region of Uzbekistan last year.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | February 16, 2006 at 12:16
I expect the Western powers are secretly hoping that Israel will resolve the problem with a repeat performance of their 1981 pre-emptive strike against Iraq's nuclear plants which they (the Western powers) will then hypocritically denounce.
Posted by: johnC | February 16, 2006 at 12:47
DVA: Ukraine isn't quite as unique as some people are fearing. Similar, but less well-publicised, incidents have occurred in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, and it will be interesting to see what happens in Belarus.
As regards Iran, the first thing to note is that, pace Dr Fox, Ahmedinejad doesn't really "control" the country so much as look after it for the mullahs, who are a little more circumspect in their pronouncements on Israel. The problem with explicitly ruling out a "fire first" policy is that it shows our hand prematurely. Even if we have no intention of ever bombing Iran, it seems bad geopolitics to announce that to the world, since it means that we forfeit a great deal of our leverage in negotiations. The mullahs are hardly going to capitulate if they know that we will never act under any circumstance. The EU would be better adopting Teddy Roosevelt's dictum of speaking softly but carrying a big stick.
Posted by: AlexW | February 16, 2006 at 12:56
John C: I'm not sure that Israel has planes which could hit the nuclear sites and make it back home - they would have to land somewhere to refuel. Not sure who would let them land. Alternatively, the job could be done by someone with a few aircraft carriers cruising around the Indian Ocean, or with submarines capable of launching missiles, or with a helpful new allied govmt in Central Asia.
DVA: the stability argument was also used against Ukraine. I'm not sure that a govmt which invaded Iraq is overly persuaded by the stability argument, but maybe 'once bitten, twice shy' will apply.
Alex W: Tehran has reacted badly to the decision to refer them to the Security Council (hardly a crew of bloodthirsty warlords). If the EU3 had not ruled out 'firing first', Tehran would have used it as an excuse to avoid talks altogether. I agree your analysis of the mullahs - they're probably using Ahmedinejad as a catspaw in the comedy role of "Chief Raghead" to be discarded if a good deal is available. By ruling out 'firing first' it allows us to escalate in the face of 'hostile' moves by Tehran: speaking softly and carrying a big stick. I doubt whether anyone in Tehran really thinks Bush and Rumsfeld have suddenly become pacifists.
It's now a race against time:
* how quickly can the mullahs build a bomb?
* how quickly can Iraq stabilise (with a govmt which doesn't want to be a Persian puppet) to free up the US?
* how quickly can the US establishment reach a consensus on action (before Bush's term expires in Jan 2009)?
* how quickly can the Iranian opposition be in a position to topple the mullahs (e.g. following a, possibly botched, air war)?
Late 2007/early 2008 looks a good window for sending in the planes.
Posted by: William Norton | February 16, 2006 at 13:34
I'm afraid further revolutions in the Stans are unlikely. Even Kyrgyzstan was significantly further advanced in freedom terms before its revolution than are the other Stans now. Ukraine before its revolution wasn't even on the same league of oppression as these states are.
In Uzbekistan, Karimov has thrown out virtually every international NGO over the past year and Andijan was merely the tip of the iceberg of repression, most human rights defenders have fled abroad or are in jail, or dead, and all this is a direct consequence of Ukraine and Georgia. While you may think this is likely to foment unrest, there are actually few people still at large in Uzbekistan who could inspire it and ordinary people are (rightly?) too afraid of their government boiling them to death to do anything out of line. Again, Ukrainians did not have that fear. Turkmenistan is unlikely too - the president is such a nutcase that he closed down all the hospitals outside the capital, people are probably imagining that rising up will lead to all the remaining ones being closed down just as they are shot at and in need of treatment. In Kazakhstan the dictator is less of a tyrant and people aren't so outraged while the country's oil is helping its economic situation, and in Tajikistan I think they're rather more concerned with gathering some luxuries like running water, electricity and enough food to eat.
Incidentally, Uzbekistan is no longer an ally in the war on terror - it threw the US out of its base there after the Bush administration dallied, ummed and ahhed a bit and then said that it might not be 100% behind the Uzbek government over Andijan.
Even Belarus, according to even the opposition itself, is unlikely. Lukashenko has very much followed the Karimov path of pre-emptive strikes against potential revolutionaries. In fact he has been doing that for 10 years, but just stepped it up since Ukraine. Still, I'll be taking a trip over there for election weekend and I very much hope to see myself proven wrong before my eyes.
As for Iran, I think it would be best to keep the military option open, showing force in order not to have to use it, but without making the Iranians think that we will use it for aggressive purposes, such as invasion. One solution would be to let the Israelis bomb the Iranian nuclear programme out of existence in one night time raid like they did Iraq's in the early 80s, claim the West had nothing to do with it but support Israel's right to self-defence, and supply it with the most advanced nuclear defence technology to shoot down any incoming missiles launched in revenge that they haven't already disabled in their attack. Israel, after all, can legitimately claim an act of pure self-defence.
Posted by: Martin Smith | February 16, 2006 at 15:40
Many of the problems are a result of America's abrogation of nuclear disarment commitments, and its refusal to cooperate in giving the non-proliferation treaty any teeth. The only recourse now is the Security Council, or unilateral action which I am fairly confident would be illegal under international law.
It's very unlikely that any airstrikes would remove the problem, and the consequences of such an action are liable to be worse than the consequences of inaction. Unless there is a land invasion, such action will allow the mullahs to crack down and encourage the hatred of America.
Promising no first strike was stupid, though. The US boycott of Iran means that the EU does very well out of trade with Iran, and is reluctant to use the trade embargo as a tool of negotitation.
Some suggestions that have been mooted:
1. Let Iran have a reactor in Russia.
2. Give them reactors and a guaranteed supply of nuclear materials.
3. Let them generate energy under the direct an permanent supervision of the IAEA.
4. Build them a billion Euros worth of wind turbines.
Posted by: True Blue | February 16, 2006 at 16:26
"DVA: Ukraine isn't quite as unique as some people are fearing. Similar, but less well-publicised, incidents have occurred in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, and it will be interesting to see what happens in Belarus."
The circumstances are different in each case. Admittedly there have been other relatively recent revolutions within the former Soviet Union but any expectation of a domino effect is flawed. Fear of such a domino effect has actually led to the remaining tinpot dictators tightening their grip on power.
With regards Belarus, the appetite for change there is actually overstated as Alexander Lukashenko still commands the support of a significant amount of the population, ironically mostly outside Minsk (his seat of power).
"DVA: the stability argument was also used against Ukraine. I'm not sure that a govmt which invaded Iraq is overly persuaded by the stability argument, but maybe 'once bitten, twice shy' will apply."
I think you're missing my point. In Uzbekistan et al (Kyrgyzstan being the one that got away), stability is important from the standpoint of the US and allies in the 'war on terror' as these countries are a vital staging post for operations in Afghanistan and, to a lesser extent, the Persian Gulf, hence why the only response of Britain, the US and others to the appalling actions of these despicable regimes is to do little more than tut in their general direction.
Another point of note is that these countries always play the 'Islamic extremists' card to justify their brutal suppression of political opposition, making it harder for countries like Britain and the US to actively support opposition movements in these countries - a situation which did not apply in Ukraine.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | February 16, 2006 at 16:35
Yep, usually it's Islamic terrorism that is the cover. The surviving protesters from Andijan are currently being tried on various trumped-up charges of libel and of belonging to Islamic terrorist organisations. Needless to say, they are all being convicted.
Meanwhile, in Britain, terrorism is used as an excuse for ID cards, the abolition of trial by jury and presumption of innocence, house arrests, banning of demonstrations and curtailments of free speech.
More reasons why our government doesn't say much about the regimes of the Stans.
Posted by: Martin Smith | February 16, 2006 at 17:07
DVA: Yes, I think I have missed your point. The usual 'stability' argument against action is that 'instability' is not in our interest. Mark Steyn has made a career out of satirising that view, and in fact Neoconservatism: why we need it (reviewed elsewhere on this blog; £20 from all good book shops) outlines flaws in such thinking. Having re-read your posts, I think you're making the point that we're already getting what we'd want from the Stans, so there's no reason to go to the trouble of over-throwing their govmts.
Point taken. The Neo-con argument (very simplified) is that long-term stability is best served by converting them into 'proper' democracies. As I say, Iraq has given that view a bit of a kicking.
Martin Smith:Yep, usually it's Islamic terrorism that is the cover
And of course, cracking down on moderates is the best way of boosting Islamic terrorists as the only surviving outlet of dissent - cf Egypt, and I suppose Palestine. That's one of the neocon arguments for regime change.
Posted by: William Norton | February 16, 2006 at 17:24
"Having re-read your posts, I think you're making the point that we're already getting what we'd want from the Stans, so there's no reason to go to the trouble of over-throwing their govmts."
Almost. Substitute 'we' for 'the US government and allied governments in the war on terror' and you're there. Personally I'm in favour of doing everything we can to get rid of these vile regimes, but I appreciate that affirmative action is incredibly unlikely any time soon given the 'staging post' role these countries have in the war on terror and the outdated decision-making process in the United Nations.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | February 16, 2006 at 21:22
"Personally I'm in favour of doing everything we can to get rid of these vile regimes, but I appreciate that affirmative action is incredibly unlikely any time soon given the 'staging post' role these countries have in the war on terror and the outdated decision-making process in the United Nations"
Agreed on the UN, but I would make the point again that they are not staging posts anymore. That relationship between the US and Uzbekistan collapsed over Andijan. They've been thrown out.
Posted by: Martin Smith | February 16, 2006 at 21:48
If nothing else, the War on Terror ought to rehabilitate the reputation of Neville Chamberlain. If the democracies had 'stood up' to Hitler (i.e. sent troops into Germany at some point prior to 1939) the result would probably have been the same as Iraq today - except that the insurgency would have been organised by Germans.
In dealing with Tehran I don't think we're at the Munich stage yet, but earlier on. Ruling out 'firing first' is an easy concession - and easier if the EU3 are seen to be making it, not the US - because we [in the wider DVA sense] are in no state to fight a war; they know we know etc etc. A year or so from now it would be simple to find some escalation by Tehran which justifies a change of policy.
That still leaves the four ticking clocks (mullahs making bombs; Iraqis making peace; Americans making up their minds; Iranian democrats making a bid). If "we" don't go for a friendly democratic revolution in one of the 'Stans first it rules out a ground war (free Iraq would be mad to let themselves be used as a jumping-off point).
That just leaves the aeroplanes - and increases the need for a local democracy movement to oust the regime by themselves. Can't leave the job half done.
Posted by: William Norton | February 16, 2006 at 22:06
"I would make the point again that they are not staging posts anymore. That relationship between the US and Uzbekistan collapsed over Andijan. They've been thrown out."
Sorry - missed that point first time! I stand corrected! With that 'justification' removed, the failure of Western governments to do more than wag their fingers is even more reprehensible.
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | February 16, 2006 at 22:19
If nothing else, the War on Terror ought to rehabilitate the reputation of Neville Chamberlain.
I don't think so, William. Prior to 1939, it seems apparent that Germany would have backed down if someone had stood up to them (see how Mussolini stopped the first attempt to annex Austria, for example). A few set backs could well have led to that regime's collpse...
Shamless Godwinning aside, I would tend to agree with your analysis of the situation in Iran.
Posted by: James Hellyer | February 16, 2006 at 23:04
"Shamless Godwinning aside, I would tend to agree with your analysis of the situation in Iran."
I must apologise, it was me that made the first reference to Chamberlain (although in a different context to William). Bloody Godwin...
Posted by: Daniel Vince-Archer | February 16, 2006 at 23:45
Military option against Iran being used? Unlikely I would say. Bush's support at home for the War in Iraq is low (but not for his war on terror, and the two are very different things). Blair only got Britsih Troops into Iraq because of Tory support, and I don't think he'd get it again. His own party wouldn't support it, certainly.
To do it again will play right into the hands of the French, who will delight in selling arms to the Iraqis and further alienating the EU from the US.
No, not even Bush is THAT stupid. (is he?)
Posted by: Jon White | February 17, 2006 at 03:39
"No, not even Bush is THAT stupid. (is he?)"
There is an interesting piece in the Times today by Gerard Baker discussing the end of aggressive US foreign policy.
Could it be that the Tories are once again one step behind by seeking to suck up to Bush by talking military action, just when his adminstration has lost its appetite for such an approach?
End of the neocons?
http://www.politicalpulse.co.uk/go.asp?sid=66
Posted by: Chad | February 17, 2006 at 08:51
Godwin's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
Wikipedia: There is a tradition of protocol in many Usenet newsgroups that once such a comparison is made, the thread in which the comment was posted is over and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.
Norton's First Amendment: As an online discussion converges to the crux of the argument the probability that someone will invoke Godwin as a distraction approaches 1.
Norton's Second Amendment: Chamberlain doesn't count as a reference to Hitler or the Nazis when discussing a strategic dilemma involving foreign dictators.
I thought DVA's comment perfectly fair and responded in kind. I mean, if you're discussing appeasement vs pre-emption it does seem a little harsh to ban any discussion of Appeasement. But if you prefer, shall we substitute "Suez" as an example instead?
Posted by: William Norton | February 17, 2006 at 10:58
It's not a distraction - I simply don't think that the situation viz a viz the containment of Nazi Germany is readily comparable to that of Iran, and that as such it's likely to actually distract from the specific matter under consideration.
In essence I'm far from convinced that counterfactualism adds much to analysis of real world problems.
Posted by: James Hellyer | February 17, 2006 at 11:18
Iran's somewhat misguided President (Unlike Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden or Gerry Adams who I consider to be evil, I rather think the new Iranian President is just misguided - he comes from a rural peasant background and although certainly intelligent is obviously not a very worldly person) is facing substantial opposition from the Iranian Parliament and was elected mainly over economic and social issues not over Foreign Policy over which he has little control, the Iranian Presidency is much more limited in scope than other and in fact the Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khatemi who is the most powerful person in the country issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons and I see no reason to doubt that he intends merely to see Iran develop a capability rather than the actual weapons itself, surely Britain's best response is to double Defence Spending and hugely increase the size both of conventional and nuclear forces especially the number of warheads and capability of a nuclear strike, if Iran attacks the UK then our response should be to totally destroy Iran with an all out nuclear strike as it would be against any country that attacked us.
Surely the main thing is to sort out Somalia where Al Qaeda have been growing in strength in a situation in which there is effectively no government in that it is not actually inside the country, the warlords and Al Qaeda should be systematically exterminated from the country and looting and rioting should be punishable by death, once order is restored then holding elections there could be considered.
And so far as further regime change goes Zimbabwe and North Korea would also have to be considered priorities for this, the problem with North Korea being it's proximity to China otherwise a heavy bombing campaign could flatten all military facilities (if neccessary using nuclear weapons) and then a ground invasion but I am afraid that China would not tolerate this, indeed it might be best if China removed the North Korean regime and put in a more moderate one.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | March 08, 2006 at 03:54
Some extreme comments by Iran's President, renewed interest in their nuclear intentions, sabre rattling by the US, all do great things for the Iranian GDP.
A few "incidents" in the Straits of Hormuz will soon see the "black stuff" at $100PB.
Seems the West is over a barrel...... literally!
Posted by: Paul Kennedy | March 19, 2006 at 09:34
As a keen supporter of the State of Israel i can't say i have vast oceans of warm feeling for the Iranian regime. However despite their 'Wipe-Israel-off-the-map' stance i do not think that military action or even the threat of possible action at some undetermined point in the future is the right way to go.
Posted by: David Banks | May 17, 2006 at 12:56