iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Amb. Marc Ginsberg

GET UPDATES FROM Amb. Marc Ginsberg
 

"Preoccupy" the Atomic Ayatollahs

Posted: 12/09/11 04:53 PM ET

It took the best of international detective work against a determined master of the dark arts and subversion, but at long last the UN's intrepid nuclear inspectors caught Iran red-handed in the act of atomic bomb construction. In an unusually harsh, unprecedented November 18, 2011 assessment, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) most recent report constitutes a clear and relatively convincing indictment of Iran's so-called peaceful nuclear program.

IAEA investigators revealed irrefutable evidence that Iran:

  1. Created computer models of nuclear explosions.
  2. Conducted experiments on nuclear bomb triggers.
  3. Engaged in research on how to transform enriched uranium into an actual warhead.

And that's not all.

The IAEA report revealed how Iran enlisted the services of a former Soviet nuclear scientist to enable it to deploy its enriched uranium onto an actual missile warhead.

Iran is undeniably a state sponsor of the big lie. If these are IAEA approved elements of a NPT-compliant "peaceful" nuclear program, well, then, I have a bridge over the East River for sale.

Taking its orders from Tehran, Iran's diehard legions of apologists wasted no time refuting the IAEA and its findings by attempting to shoot the messenger (i.e., the IAEA) -- a favorite tactic of Iran's amen choir. Others resorted to the age old bromide excusing Iran's illicit nuclear program on the grounds that Israel and the U.S. have nuclear weapons.

The atomic ayatollahs are about to reach the end of the road in their showdown with the west. This moment of reckoning has come far more quickly than anyone had contemplated.

What now to do?

"The toughest sanctions on Iran ever" (President Obama's words) had one goal: namely, to force Iran to end its illegal nuclear program. Even by its own admission, sanctions have stung, but have not deterred Tehran. In other words, existing economic sanctions have failed.

So while the Obama administration deserves high marks for constructing an innovative and biting sanctions regime, the easy part is over. The president is not doing himself any service by patting himself on the back for the sanctions the U.S. has inflicted on Iran. It has the air of the old adage "but for the patient dying, the operation was a complete success!"

And as the clock ticks to midnight, the administration has developed a bad case of cold feet, contesting congressional calls to impose financial sanctions on Iran's central bank, which would have the effect of preventing Iran from receiving income from its principal oil customers; namely India and South Korea.

Its cause for hesitation: the White House is concerned that the consequence of this sanction would cause the price of oil to escalate in an election year because Iran -- the world's third largest oil exporter -- would be unable to receive payment for its oil, and would cut its exports inducing global prices to spike. It is not an unreasonable concern given the pain Americans already feel at the pump.

But when the Secretary of Defense bares his understandable hesitations against the use of military force, which he did last Friday -- no matter how meritorious they are -- it only undermines the signals his administration is broadcasting. Sometimes one wonders whether the left hand and right are working at cross purposes. If all options are on the table, why is the Secretary of Defense throwing ice water on the option in public?

Its not hard to see that President Obama's Iran policy has been focused on kicking the Iran nuclear can down the street as long as possible, hoping that a miracle in its diplomacy would rescue it from facing the tough choices it itself asserts are necessary.

But between unfair Republican bellicosity, accusing Obama of "appeasement" and the IAEA's findings, the White House is being backed into a corner without a coherent strategy going forward despite its protests that Iran with a bomb is a direct national security threat to the United States.

So, is there anything more that can be done to turn back Iran's drop dead hour before a mushroom cloud erupts over an Iranian desert testing ground?

Covert Sabotage

More robust and coordinated covert action by western and Arab nations against Iran's nuclear facilities must become an urgent priority. Mysterious computer viruses such as the Stuxnet worm, undeniably set back Iran's spinning uranium enrichment centrifuges. But their success was short lived. Assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists may have created a climate of fear, but also have not prevented Iran from moving more quickly to its finish line.

Last week's "accidental" explosion which destroyed one of Iran's largest solid-fuel missile construction bases was a gift that may keep on giving. It not only killed a key Revolutionary Guard commander in charge of missile solid fuel rocket development, the explosion also compels Iran to rely more on liquid fuel missiles that are easier to detect on the ground via satellite surveillance.

The escalating use of stealth drones conducting surveillance above Iran is an indication that the administration is not reluctant to push the covert envelope. The question is what to do with the treasure trove of data the drone surveillance program yielded?

Accidents do happen. Bigger "accidents" are needed. Rather than relying further on economic sanctions, we need a more effective "accidents regime" that may do what economic sanctions have failed to do. Of course, Iran has demonstrated a huge tolerance for international isolation and economic pain. There is no assurance that escalating covert action will achieve a better outcome than economic sanctions... but its worth the risk given the stakes involved.

There are targets aplenty throughout Iran, including remote pipelines, ships bound for Iran supplying oil distillates, banking computer networks, and aviation facilities. And the regime has a lot of enemies, including many of its own citizens to do the dirty work. No return U.S. address needed.

Shipping Embargoes

Draconian as it sounds, a quarantine of international shipping to Iran should be on the table. Although an overt embargo is an act of war, a market-driven embargo on Iran's ports by shipping companies worried about escalating insurance costs may do the trick. How? Denying shipping companies that trade with Iran access to U.S. and allied financial institutions and reinsurers could do what a more risky front line naval embargo would do.

Additionally, as ironic as it may sound, the world's third largest oil exporter has to import refined gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. A concerted U.S. and European financial and insurance embargo on companies that export refined petroleum products to Iran should be implemented.

A More Effective Persian Gulf Trade Embargo

As much as Sunni Arab states detest Shiite Iran's regional aspirations, a continuing supply of trade and consumer goods ply the waters between Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates. Privately, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have imposed some restrictions on cross-Gulf trade, but not enough given what could be smuggled under the camouflage of commercial goods.

In the final analysis there are no magic bullets given Russia's and China's refusal to really turn the financial screws on Iran that could bring the Ayatollahs to their knees. But there is a lot more pain that can be inflicted on Tehran without resort to overt military attack. It's time to take off the gloves and put on the black camouflage fatigues.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 221
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
10:25 PM on 12/11/2011
Wow! Amb. Ginsberg, aside from being factually wrong on so many accounts, you also chose the wrong profession! Ambassador, diplomacy, avoiding war, does that ring a bell?!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andre De Angelis
07:17 PM on 12/11/2011
>> The IAEA report revealed how Iran enlisted the services of a former Soviet nuclear scientist to enable it to deploy its enriched uranium onto an actual missile warhead.

Actually, this story was debunked at least 24 hours before the report was released. it turned out that the alledged nuclear scientist was not a nuclear scientist at all, but an expert in teh production of nano diamonds. The scienitis was also invited to give presentations on his research in the US in January.

There is nothign illegal about Iran's nuclear program. As a signatory to the NPT, Iran is fully entitled to enrich uranium for civlian purposes. and the 2007 and 2011 NIE confirm that this is all Iran has been doing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andre De Angelis
07:17 PM on 12/11/2011
There are so many false statements in this piece from Ginsberg, but let;'s adress those pertaining tio the IAEA Report.

>> Created computer models of nuclear explosions

There is absolutely no evidence provided in the report that suports this claim. The report alludes to computer models, but does not specify what those simulations were, let alone produce any evidence of them

>> Conducted experiments on nuclear bomb triggers

False again. The IAEA report does not produce any evience that Iran conducted experiments on nuclear bomb triggers. It states that claims made by member states (ie. the US and Israel) make these claims, but the initial story about nuclear bomb trigges were themselves based on forged documents

>>Engaged in research on how to transform enriched uranium into an actual warhead.

False again. There is no such evidence presented in the report. These claims are based on a stolen laptop that has never been forensically examined. In fact, all 16 US intelligence agencies have looked at all the so called evidence and concluded that they are not credible claims.

So has Robert Kelly, former IAEA Secretary, who has seen all this so called evidence. If any pof these claims were legtimate, they would not merely have appeared in the appendix of the report, but would have been included in the body of the actual Safegurds Report.
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
07:30 PM on 12/12/2011
It would be interesting to know how you have inside information on the IAEA work that allows you to know if a laptop has been examined and how it has been examined. The fact is you cannot know what has been done unless you are on the inside of the IAEA. Are you? I don;t imagine you are.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andre De Angelis
12:25 AM on 12/13/2011
Bubba,

You are clearly out of your depth on this topicm, so perhaps you shodl go back to playing with your toy trains.

The IAEA does now have the laptop, it's in the hands of the CIA and Sy Hersh, among others, have reported that the authenticity of the laptop and it's contents is unverified and highly suspect within the US intelligence community.
11:37 AM on 12/14/2011
The so called evidence have been around for years, examined by CIA, and much of the in formation was released. In addition, the IAEA report was examined by many reputable organizations and this is what is known. The Russian Nuclear Expert that worked in Iran in the 90s wasn't a nuclear expert, wasn't even Russians. The so called warhead design found on the laptop was the wrong size for Iranian missiles, and the information get less reliable as we go on, while every micro-gram of Iranian Uranium has been accounted for.

There is little question that the nuclear crisis is a crisis of convenience. Aside from that, since US and Israel are nuclear weapon states that constantly threaten Iran, unless they are willing to offer Iran security guarantees, they are not in a position to complain.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cathleen
10:53 AM on 12/13/2011
November 15, 2011
Former IAEA Inspector: Misleading Iran Report Proves Nothing

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7594
05:36 PM on 12/10/2011
If we get dragged into a war against Iran for the sake of Israel, we will run un trillions more in debt. Eventually the banksters will demand payment. We are going to go the way Argentina, Chile etc did in the 1970's and Iceland, Greece and Ireland are now.

The real enemy who is destroying this country are certainly not the Iranians.
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
07:26 PM on 12/12/2011
The US has fought wars for Saudi Arabi and the other Gulf states but never for Israel.
The economic ills hurting the US are due to the GOP led diversion of money from the middle class to the richest Americans. To blame this on Israel is to engage in a form of intellectual dishonesty.
08:51 PM on 12/12/2011
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were instigated by the Neocons for Israel. They are pushing for war with Pakistan and Iran (also for Israel).

The economic ills of the US are due in a large part to efforts and actions taken on behalf of Israel.
04:30 PM on 12/10/2011
Let´s "preoccupy" the Nuclear Rabbis while we´re at it, Mr. ambassador for Isreal.
06:58 PM on 12/10/2011
Fanned and Fav well said with the exceptions he is a former ambassador many many years ago.
05:12 PM on 12/11/2011
RE: "Let´s 'preoccupy­' the Nuclear Rabbis while we´re at it" ~ tomorrowman58

SEE: "West Bank rabbi: Jews can kill Gentiles who threaten Israel" ~ Haaretz Service, 11/09/09
Book by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapiro of Yitzhar permits even the murder of babies and children who pose threat.
LINK - http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/west-bank-rabbi-jews-can-kill-gentiles-who-threaten-israel-1.4496
03:37 PM on 12/10/2011
Pearl Harbour followed immediately by Germany and Japan's proclamation of war against America is the answer to those isolationists who have no idea who the Shiite Ayatollas are and they're mass production of nukes will make the last world war look like a girl-scout picnic.
04:14 PM on 12/10/2011
"Pearl Harbour followed immediatel­y by Germany and Japan's proclamati­on of war against America is the answer "

Can you 'splain what you sayin' Ricky.
04:40 PM on 12/10/2011
I think he's saying the US and Israel should be more like Japan and Germany, and attack first
photo
PharmaCan
Trying to make sense of it all
03:30 PM on 12/10/2011
In the entire history of the world, only one country has ever used a nuclear weapon. That would be the USA. So we are really in no position to condemn Iran just because they want to have a nuclear weapon too. Regardless, Iran is not a threat to us. If they so much as think about pointing a nuclear weapon in our direction, we could reduce their country to rubble with the push of a few buttons. Iran is a problem for the Arabs and Israel, so let them deal with it. It's way past time that we quit thinking we have some kind of responsibility to solve all the world's problems. Besides, if the Arabs and Israelis have to collaborate on some kind of strategic alliance, it might just lead to a better peace in the Middle East.
photo
skeeterandbucky
Rebel with a cause. Or six
04:21 PM on 12/10/2011
It's too bad our elected representatives can't figure out your simple logic. Excellent post!
07:03 PM on 12/10/2011
Great post blows the neocom BS out of the water.
This is not about nukes it is about Iran helping Lebanon and Palestine to themselves..
jhNY
Mercy.
02:56 PM on 12/10/2011
"It's time to take off the gloves and put on the black camouflage fatigues." The man who advocates this war-making is far too old to do the job himself, but he's got great job ideas for your children.
photo
Wozzeck
Pearl Bay, Australia
07:41 PM on 12/10/2011
"but he's got great job ideas for your children"
but not his.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ghostberry
All empty souls tend toward extreme opinions.
02:36 PM on 12/10/2011
Realpolitik aside, i find it ironic that the one country who has used atom bombs against people, is the country charged with policing everyone else from having them. Put your bombs where your mouth is.
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
07:41 PM on 12/12/2011
The people who condemn the US for using a nuke, actually 2, are ignorant of the history of WW II. Had the US not used nukes against Japan the invasion that would have been necessary would have cost over 1 million US/Allied lives and even more Japanese lives. The war would have stretched on for at least two more years and cost billions of dollars.
The reasons for using the two nukes far outweighed any reason for not using them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ishmael1
A Man Born To Hang Ain't Gonna Die Of Drowning
02:36 PM on 12/10/2011
The ONLY people who have EARNED the RIGHT to order a nuclear weapons launch are the Hibakusha, the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. NO ONE ELSE, not kings mullahs potentates, Presidents nor Prime ministers have that Right.
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
07:42 PM on 12/12/2011
Your statement is laughably wrong and is a good indication you have no good knowledge of WW II.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ishmael1
A Man Born To Hang Ain't Gonna Die Of Drowning
03:37 AM on 12/13/2011
Oh Really? I was atually a MEMBER of Nuclear Weapons Handling Teams in the Navy, my battle stateion was as Firing Petty Officer which meant I eas actuallt TASKED wirh LAUNCHING nuclear weapons. Additionally, I've actually VISITED Hiroshima, Nagasaki AND Trinity Site where U saw the shadows of the Dead burned into the few walls left standing after the blasts.NEC 0434. U'm also an amateur historian to boot. So, BUB, what experience do YOU have in the Nuclear Weapons field?
02:12 PM on 12/10/2011
If Ginsberg's posts are any indication regarding the ideology of our foreign policy establishment then I am seriously concerned about the future. I wish he would read a site like the Race for Iran (http://www.raceforiran.com/) to clear about misconceptions.

Iran has not started an aggressive war in hundreds of years and the only risk of Iran getting a nuke I can see is that they will have more power in the Middle East. To me that isn't a direct national security threat to the United States. I'd also point out the dangers of draconian sanctions as they can result in the death of millions of innocents as in the case of Iraq in the 90s.
03:49 PM on 12/10/2011
Sunni Arab countries don't agree with your love-fest of Shiite Iran.
04:27 PM on 12/10/2011
You mean our precious allies, Husni Mubarak, King Abdullah and Ben Ali? or the democracy-loving king of Bahrain or Rumsfeld's chum, Saddam Hussein?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andre De Angelis
07:21 PM on 12/11/2011
>> Sunni Arab countries don't agree with your love-fest of Shiite Iran.

On the contrary, with the exception of the US sponsored puppet dictators, the majority of the Arab world suports Iran's nuclear program and even believes that a nuclear armed Iran would be good for the region.

But don't let that get in the way of your love-fest of Wahabist Saudi Arabia.
02:02 PM on 12/10/2011
The reason we went to war in the Middle East not that long ago. Orders from people that have dual citizenship.
05:10 PM on 12/10/2011
I am not sure who you are referring to. If it is American Jews holding dual citizenship in both the US and Israel does that mean that Israelis can hold dual citizenship in Israeli and America? I know that American Jews vote in Israeli elections. Does it follow that Israeli Jews can vote in American elections? It could be the reason why so many of our politicians are pandering to a Jewish audience.
07:07 PM on 12/10/2011
pandering is right on target.
BubbaC33
Jimmy Buffett is the greatest American
07:47 PM on 12/12/2011
Yes, it is legal to hold dual US/Israeli citizenship. I do, having been born in the US during a trip by my parents to Texas. The idea the war in Iraq as fought on orders from folks like me is insulting and clearly anti-Semetic. There are people from a number of other nations who can legally hold dual citizenship.
The fact is W wanted to get Saddam Hussein out of a desire to get the man who had ordered the death of his father. W was also good friends with the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, another nation with a good reason for wanting regime change in Iraq.
Anyone who marked the posting by sky as a favorite is as racist and anti-Semitic as sky.
02:02 PM on 12/10/2011
A overt military attack on Iran would only backfire. But strong sanctions and sabatog might work.
12:20 AM on 12/11/2011
strong sanctions and sabotage would only lead to a real war, that would go very badly for everyone.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LadyXoc
12:25 PM on 12/10/2011
Stinging Iran with sanctions and embargoes is dancing on the edge of a volcanic crater. Given the present leadership and degree of saber-rattling going on there, I suspect our administration knows war is inevitable, and simply doesn't want to be the initiating party. It all is very reminiscent of the run-up to Pearl Harbor.
05:32 PM on 12/10/2011
Iran is no threat at all. Israel is a threat to everyone in the ME and around the world.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cathleen
09:52 AM on 12/13/2011
Israel threatens Iran daily as well as I lobby members in the US congress who create legislation about Iran that is based on inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims. The Iranian President never said that Iran 'wants to wipe Israel off the map" This is a debunked and untrue statement that has been repeated for years in our MSM. Diane Rehm, Rachel Maddow, Neal Conan host of NPR's Talk of the Nation, Bob Schiefer, Chrisitane Amanpour, and many others have allowed guest to repeat these false claims many times with no challenges. NPR's Terri Gross has not only allowed guest to say that Iran all ready has a nuclear weapons program and that Iran 'wants to wipe Israel off the map" Gross has endlessly repeated these claims herself. This verbal escalation has been ramped up over the last eight years

Seymour Hersh wrote in the New Yorker five years ago that Israeli and US special forces were all ready on the ground in Iran. The war against Iran started long ago. And if Israel has its way they will drag us into a military confrontation with Iran.

Best website about Iran
http://www.raceforiran.com/
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
04:58 PM on 12/11/2011
Your historical analogy utterly fails.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
William50
12:21 PM on 12/10/2011
How very fast do you think India and South Korea would scream if we cut off their oil? Instead of this lets go slow either have the UN demand China, France and the EU plus India and the other Arab states, Russia will refuse, to level the buildings and anything that has to do, including administration areas threw out the country.
Not a 90% US force but a third world, second level attack.