In December 2008, David Sanger published “The Inheritance”, a slashing condemnation of President Bush and his administration’s policies in the Middle East and particularly with respect to Iran.

Now, nearly four years later, we are coming up to a new administration, either one re-elected or one just taking power for the first time, which will indeed inherit the current US-Iranian conundrum.

What will that look like? In just the past two weeks, I have found seven “slogans” on US-Iran policy, old and new, that all dance around a common theme. I call these “Fortune Cookie Analyses”. They are short, one-liners, that are meant to convey well thought-out analysis. But the thrust of these policy recommendations are all of the same cloth: “Don’t worry, things are fine”. Here they are, from Bill Keller, the managing editor of the New York Times, to Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, to the CBS evening television news, to USA Today, to Foreign Affairs.

(1)Iran is building nukes only because of US threats; (2) Iran will really, really build nukes but only if the US or Israel attacks its current nuke sites; (3) Iran and Israel are really talking, so do not worry; (4) Iran is actually rational and beginning to make sense; (5) Those crazy folks in Israel are being reckless in their war mongering; (4) Iran will negotiate a deal after the elections so do not worry; (6) Military action against Iran won’t work because, well, it will only “delay” their nuke development; (7) Action by Israel against Saddam re: the Osirak reactor made him really, really mad and forced Saddam to accelerate his nuclear program; and (8) Just in case, we can deter a nuclear armed Iran just as we did the Soviets, because after all, Iran is rational, (see four (4) above).

You will notice the self-contradictory nature of these strongly held beliefs. And their baffling incoherence.

For example, Iran will only really, really pursue nuclear weapons if we attack their nuclear sites!

And of course my favorite, Saddam really, really pursued nuclear weapons but only after the Israeli raid on Iraq’s nuclear reactor in operation OPERA in June 1981.

The real story? The Israeli raid did force Saddam’s nuclear program further underground. But it slowed what otherwise would have been an unimpeded nuclear program. As for the supposed watchdogs under Hans Blix of the International Atomic Energy Administration? Mostly face down in their bowls of Viennese Alpo, sound asleep.

It is true, the US and others discovered the extent of the Iraq nuclear program only after the liberation of Kuwait, a military action opposed by many of the same folks who denied Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program. Would Saddam have been closer to having nuclear weapons in the absence of an Israeli strike, in that the Iraqi dictator was bent upon securing such weapons one way or the other?

At first glance, conventional wisdom apparently believes that Iran’s nuclear program, whatever it may be, is not cause for worry.

But what in fact might be the facts already “on the ground”, so to speak that the next administration might inherit? Could we be missing some developments? Some of my colleagues suggest we might be surprised that:
• Iran already has functioning, tested warheads;
• It is amassing more enriched uranium for more bombs;
• Much is being accomplished in underground, hardened, bunkers under mountains, and such which neither IAEA nor U.S. knows about;
• Trigger/explosives work formerly done at Parchin has moved underground
• Warheads might not yet be successfully married up to nosecones of nuclear-capable Shahab-3s but give them time;
• IAEA reports from Nov 2011, Feb 2012, May 2012, and Aug 2012 are very revealing as to Iranian progress on nuclear weapons – all available online at IAEA website;
• We may not have Until Spring 2013 before Iran enters “zone of immunity”;
• Sanctions regime is precipitating implosion of Iranian economic system but to date we do not know whether such economic conditions can precipitate regime change…
• Iranian leadership may not care how negative economic conditions become. They may indeed simply want the “bomb” to go after the little and big “Satan”…
• Unless the regime is destroyed, and from within, the nuclear program may be set back, but the program cannot be destroyed completely, and regime not only is likely to retaliate, perhaps globally, certainly vs. Israel & US forces in the region, but also will double down to finish its program — unless the regime also is removed from power….
• That is the unfortunate inheritance for the next administration.
• Too much of elite US opinion is under the sway of Iranian disinformation, as demonstrated by thousands of now-public documents/emails from the Hassan Daioleslam defamation case, brought and just lost by NIAC/Trita Parsi
• Sleep well!
• All the best, Peter Huessy Senior Defense Consultant, Air Force Association

In terms of Hezbullah and arms south of the Litani, well from the point of view of IAEA or anyone outside Israel, so what. It is a totally sepeate issue, and just reinforces the point that regardless of the nuclear issue you want Iranian regime change.

Russia does not want another nuclear power on its southern border, but Russia is not up for regime change for the benefit of Israel or US.

And, Hezbollah has been ordered to disarm south of the Litani per UN resolutions, which it has refused.

You know, international law.

Your proposal is really too vague. Any basis of any confidence anywhere relative to relations with Iran?

In more detail, the proposal is to take some agreement that Iran already approved, amend it here and there, and offer that, plus a rather complete removal of economic sanctions. Make a few round, add loud protestations on both sides about worthlessness of the proposal, and arrive at a historical agreement.

Or we make a war.
Perhaps it may be a preferred option.

War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and imposes the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to make it.
Benito Mussolini

War is to man what maternity is to a woman. From a philosophical and doctrinal viewpoint, I do not believe in perpetual peace.
Benito Mussolini

No dynamic has ever entered into this dispute. It has remained essentially static for generations. There is ‘us’ and there is ‘them’ and ‘never the twain shall meet.’ Having no sense of shared identity with the other side, both Arab and Jew remain isolated by their own unique religious and cultural heritage, never once imagining themselves as a single group or collective of like-minded individuals.

It is only by recognising and adapting this all too obvious state of affairs that a bonding between two such disparate peoples can ever be made and then, once established, be utilised to its fullest extent. And that extent can turn out to be very full indeed.

The dominant point of contact here remains the conflict itself; this long-standing, seemingly eternal.
struggle for mastery over a situation that has now taken matters very much into the realm of the nuclear. This cannot be considered a good development, not unless it forces all of us into a fundamental reappraisal of what it is we are witnessing. And what we could be witnessing in the very near future.

How, therefore, can the problem be turned to everyone’s advantage?

Sometimes, what can seem to be the hardest task of all, can best be solved by the simplest and most direct of methods. But only if we can figure out in time just what that might be.

Http://yorketowers.blogspot.com

I think it is unrealistic to consider Iran not an aggressing state on Israel.

The fear of their immediate firing a missile with a thermonuclear device is a gross exageration, but the intermediate (severe) threats are real.

That Iran, Hezbollah, others have intentionally directed their aggressions at civilians primarily, is real and considerable precedent, and a gross violation of every principle that progressives usually do and should hold dear.

From the Iranian pov they are a member of the NPT, have signed a treaty which allows them to have a nuclear program including reprocessing a large part of the issue is pride. If brazil can be a member of the NPT and reprocess their own fuel, how dare anyone tell Iran they can not!

There is never going to be an Iranian agreement to abolish the program now that it has got to the point which it can meet their demand for 20% enriched. They do not need much for the Tehran Research Reactor and so they have now made some, they are not going to agree to give that away. What safeguards will they agree to in return for lifting sanctions is where they are at.

The problem is I do not think any politician in US or Israel is going to be in a position to do a deal which says Iran can keep any fraction of reprocessing as they have spent 20 years telling their populations that reprocessing = bomb .

In terms of the Iraqi programme it is correct that at the time of Osirak there was next to no programme, after the French declined to rebuild Osirak in 83-4 Iraq went for a significant distributed and hidden programme with 2 different methods of enrichment , there is debate as to how close they were to a bomb in 1991 but they were probably closer than Iran is now and were a lot lot closer than they had been in 1981. With no Kuwait invasion, and Gulf war Saddam would have had a bomb in the 1990′s. By 2003 there was no programme it had been dismanteled by the inspectors, but part of the fear of WMD was the fact that people were surprised as to how close they had got without people realising .

Lots and lots of rockets in Southern Lebanon, well sorry but IDF has invaded Lebanon 3 times since 1978 including staying for most of the 80s and 90s having a detterant to stop the IDF driving in again, is perfectly sensible from their point of view. The IDF wants the ability to drive into Sidon any time they want and kill or capture whoever they want, well they would not assume they could do that to Damascus without risking a bigger war. Is there a risk that due to Hezbullah Iran alliance that they rockets become part of a detterant to an attack on Iran well yes.

If Iran really is at the point of making a weapon then a raid which stops them might be worth that risk.
If Iran is actually years away and an attack is launched to make Bibi or whoever is PM at the time look strong to the Israeli electorate, then all those rockets may be doing something useful by giving them pause.