RSS

May 5, 2007

Martin van Berensen, Retired, Bronze Contributor (22)

"The proposed US missile defense system would offer an insurance against Iranian nuclear blackmail."

The word "insurance" does not make sense in this context. Do you mean "protection"? Well, it is unlikely that the handful of US missile will shoot down the Iranian nukes.

What scenario would constitute "nuclear blackmail"?

May 5, 2007

Martin van Berensen, Retired, Bronze Contributor (22)

"Germany and Europe should make it their mission now to strengthen the reliability of the American missile defense system, as such enormous potential for blackmail would be eliminated with the construction of a reliable missile defense shield."

Germany and Europe do not have the technological know-how to improve the US missile defense system. Assuming so is arrogant.
Germans pay billions for their welfare state, but next to nothing for defense.

The US defense budget for R&D is much bigger than Germany's entire defense budget.

Even if Europe would invest as much money in this project as the US does, the reliability of missile defense won't improve much. It is so much easier for Iran and other countries to improve their missiles than it is for Europe and the US to improve their killing vehicles.

Rather than wasting billions on missile defense, Europe should engage the Iranian people and promote regime change from within.

Iran is an old civilisation. Very smart and educated people. There is great potential for future cooperation.

"technical capacity of the system to deter threats is possible at a manageable cost."

What does "managable" mean? For some people, 30 billion is beyond managable. Others consider 150 billion managable.

May 5, 2007

Casey S Butterfield, Atlantic Community, Gold Contributor (101)

Thanks for your comments, Mr. van Berensen. In reference to your first comment, Eckart von Klaeden describes such a potential "nuclear blackmail" scenario in his commentary on missile defense from earlier this week. It's political blackmail, I think, that is being referred to here.

May 5, 2007

Martin van Berensen, Retired, Bronze Contributor (22)

Ms. Butterfield

Kladen argues: "Tehran could try to drive a wedge between the United States and Europe by threatening Europe with nuclear arms if the United States or Europe were to engage in operations in the Middle East."

I assume he means the threat of nuking Europe.

Sorry, but the fundamental problem you Atlanticists seem to have is that you consider your opponents irrational. All this axis of evil nonsense is bullshit. Please excuse my French.

Yes, some religious nuts are in power in Iran -- and in some Western countries, one might want to add...
But this does not mean that they are willing to commit suicice.

All of Iran would be turned into a parking lot within hours after sending a single missile to Europe. Iran knows that. The regime is religious, but they are still rational.

Iran is clearly pursuing national interests. They don't export religious fundamentalism like Saudi Arabia.
Iran wants more regional power and talks about wiping Israel of the map, but that is just for domestic consumption.

May 5, 2007

Martin van Berensen, Retired, Bronze Contributor (22)

The US is talking about exporting democracy, but that is also just for internal consumption.

Iran will not blackmail Europe or the United States.

The US, three European countries and Israel and Pakistan and India have nukes, but nobody is accusing any of these countries of blackmail. Why not? The US bullies the world around because it can. Why can it do it? Because of nukes.

Why don't you accuse the Israel of blackmailing the entire Middle East? Israel can do whatever it wants with the Palestinian, because nobody dares to attack a nuclear power like Israel. This gives israel a free hand. The nuke is a form of "blackmail" to use your terminology.

Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers. That's why it needs nukes for defense purposes.

May 5, 2007

Martin van Berensen, Retired, Bronze Contributor (22)

Tehran realized after the Iraq war that nuclear weapons are the only insurance against regime change.

The US has been talking about regime change in Iran ever since the hostage crisis in 1979.

The US is not threatening North Korea with regime change because its nuclear program is advanced.

This is the reason Iran develops nukes.

May 8, 2007

Andreas Beckmann, Atlantische Initiative e. V., Editor

As one of the authors of this Editor’s take I would like to address and clarify some of the issues raised by Mr. van Berensen’s prolific writing:

1. Despite legions of „suicide attackers“, „holy war martyrs“ and similar tools of Iranian foreign policy (e.g. Hezbollah), it is, on a strategic level, indeed unsound to assume that the regime in Teheran, let alone the Iranian people (which, as in most dictatorships, are two very different things) are irrational. I do not assume that at all. In fact, Teheran’s policies display an impressive amount of tactical and strategic cleverness in exploiting the political and economic vulnerabilities of the West, and the permanent UNSC members, for the promotion of its own national objectives, be it in Iraq, be it in Lebanon, or in terms of its so far unimpeded striving for nuclear technology. The debate about missile defense in Europe actually suggests that at this point Iran is acting much more rationally on a strategic level than most Europeans do.

2. The danger of political blackmail through the threat of nuclear terror weapons seems very real to me. Iran would not even need reliably functioning, precise nuclear missiles to achieve that. A 50% likelihood in 2015 that Iran can successfully launch such a weapon would be fully sufficient. In a situation in which Iran then wants Western engagement against its objectives to be absent (say, in the promised destruction of the „Zionist entitiy“, i.e. the state of Israel): Which democratically accountable European leader is then ready to engage against the offensive activities of Iran (or sponsored by Iran) if that means the risk of having one of his country’s major cities wiped out in Iranian „self-defense“?

3. A credible missile defense system need not even work with overwhelming certainty (which the US, despite astonishing technological progress, is still several years away from achieving) to turn that strategic advantage of initiative around: Now the threat of a terror missile against, say, Munich, is hardly credible any more. Still firing it would not only mean losing the blackmail game, but would – even in the case of a missile intercept – run the risk of being held accountable for the openly attempted mass murder of hundreds of thousands uninvolved civilians. Iranian intermediate and long range nuclear missiles that could threaten Europe would not make sense any more; they’d be of little strategic value.

4. Yes, by far the best solution for both the West, the Gulf region and for the great nation of Iran would be the disappearance of the country‘s theocratic dictatorship. Yes, we should also invest in that option (this is, at one point, what Mr. van Berensen argues, while in another contribution he suggests that Iran acutally *needs* nuclear weapons as an „insurance“ against regime change). However, I am personally not ready to place all my bets on that card, as the risk of losing is a bit too high: If regime change fails before Iran is able to practice nuclear blackmail it will be too late. Then European polities will surrender to the regime’s claims. That’s what I’d like to see some *insurance* against, in the form of a credible missile defense system.

5. The idea of massive retaliation, of „turning Iran into a parking lot“ (van Berensen) in the case of one Iranian nuclear warhead exploding in, say, Amsterdam, is strategically, politically, and ethically unsound. That old kind of deterrence does not work here any more. Take a scenario where Amsterdam were nuked (and that’s not even designed to happen by Teheran’s worst falcons, as successful blackmail relies on the success of the *threat*, not the actual sanction) because the Netherlands voted in NATO for sending military aid to, say, the UAE under attack, or threat, from Iran. The regime in Iran would simultaneously imprison some people for „firing a weapon without permission“ and let the other countries in NATO subtly know that there’s more warheads where the last one came from (the good theocrat – bad theocrat game is played with high sophistication, and with great results, by Teheran already today). Which *democratically accountable* leader in France, the UK, or the US would order the mass murder of many million innocent Iranian civilians, and risk nukes against his own constituency, merely in revenge for an „accident“ in Holland?

6. On a more general level: As a convinced „Atlanticist“, I recognize terrible mistakes and poor policies both by the USA and Israel (the former being under the impression of a terrorist attack of unprecedented extent and brutality, and under a temporary federal government with questionable attitudes towards the rule of law.... the latter fighting against a hostile neighborhood for its mere physical existence since that very existence). However, I do not consider it appropriate to discuss „arguments“ that put policies of either of these two democratic, open, *pluralist* societies operating under the rule of law on the same level as policies by regimes in unfree and undemocratic countries. At the same time, I do not at all feel „bullied“ or threatened or otherwise negatively affected by the US or Israel – very much different to regimes such as that of Iran. I see no merit in arguments that question the achievements and values of the West by pretending that regimes and interests directed against this West, its values and interests, have equal legitimacy. They most clearly don’t.

7. The „manageable cost“ referred to in the NATO feasability study is said to be appr. 10 bn. Euros.

8. Germany’s defense expenditure is, indeed, highly insufficient. Increasing it by the amount neccessary for Germany’s NATO share in both R&D and effective procurement for tactical and strategic missile defense would be a very good first step.